[Senate Hearing 111-937]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-937
Senate Hearings
Before the Committee on Appropriations
_______________________________________________________________________
Agriculture, Rural
Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations
Fiscal Year 2011
111th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
S. 3606
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES:
Food and Drug Administration
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
S. Hrg. 111-937
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
S. 3606
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2011, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Agriculture
Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Nondepartmental witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-956 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
PATTY MURRAY, Washington ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
JACK REED, Rhode Island LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
BEN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JON TESTER, Montana
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin, Chairman
TOM HARKIN, Iowa SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BEN NELSON, Nebraska SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
JACK REED, Rhode Island
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
(ex officio)
Professional Staff
Galen Fountain
Jessica Arden Frederick
Dianne Nellor
Fitzhugh Elder IV (Minority)
Stacy McBride (Minority)
Administrative Support
Molly Barackman-Eder
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Page
Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary............... 1
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug
Administration................................................. 253
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 295
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Herb Kohl (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Kohl, Harkin, Brownback, Cochran, Bond,
and Collins.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF TOM VILSACK, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DR. KATHLEEN MERRIGAN, DEPUTY SECRETARY
DR. SCOTT STEELE, BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
opening statement of senator herb kohl
Senator Kohl. Good morning.
Today, we begin our hearings on the fiscal year 2011 budget
for the Department of Agriculture.
We'd like to welcome Secretary Vilsack. He's accompanied by
Dr. Kathleen Merrigan, Deputy Secretary; and Dr. Scott Steele,
the USDA Budget Officer. We thank you all for being here.
Last year this subcommittee worked in a bipartisan manner
that produced effective and efficient results. With an adequate
budget request and allocation, there was much collaboration
across the aisle. We were able to provide USDA with much-needed
increases in programs, like food safety, which had long been
underfunded. And we were rewarded for our bipartisan
cooperation by getting our bill out nearly on time, which, as
everyone knows, was a welcome change.
This year, the numbers are a little different, but I'm
hopeful the process will be much the same. The President's
budget proposes $21.5 billion for discretionary programs at
USDA for fiscal year 2011. This is actually a decrease from
last year, and I am pleased that USDA is showing fiscal
restraint.
It is incumbent upon this subcommittee to review all these
proposals with three priorities in mind. First, we need to
produce a bill that protects important gains made last year.
Second, we need to ensure that programs vital to people's
health, safety, and livelihoods are adequately funded. And
third, we need to do so in a way that shows fiscal restraint
and responsible austerity.
Briefly, here are a few of the major increases in the
budget, as I see them: The WIC program, which we consider
essential, receives funding necessary to provide assistance to
roughly 10 million low-income women, infants, and children. The
Food Safety and Inspection Service budget receives an increase
smaller than those of the past several years, but nevertheless
an increase in order to maintain the safety of our food supply.
The Farm Service Agency receives a large increase in order to
pay for much-needed information technology upgrades which allow
farmers to continue receiving assistance. There is a small
increase in agricultural research funding. The Foreign
Agricultural Service receives a significant increase for export
trade activities. Finally, we have additional welcome emphasis
on healthy local food production.
All of these increases, however, are more than offset by
decreases in other programs, like conservation, research, rural
development, and others. Further, the budget proposes to reduce
multiple farm bill programs that this subcommittee has worked
to protect, and which will certainly raise opposition. None of
these options are off the table, and everyone needs to be aware
of that.
Clearly, we all have to tighten our belts. We'll certainly
work to ensure that the Department has all of the funding
necessary to serve the American people. While we have been able
to provide some necessary increases over the past several
years, we will be taking a long hard look at the budget, the
proposed increases and new initiatives, as well as the proposed
decreases.
We all look forward to working, again, with Senator
Brownback in a close bipartisan manner. We need to produce a
bill that is a reflection of the importance of the USDA, but
also a reflection of the need to slow spending growth.
So, Secretary Vilsack, we welcome you, again, for being
here and look forward to your statement.
Before that, we'd like to ask Senator Brownback for his
statement.
Senator Brownback.
statement of senator sam brownback
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Senator Kohl.
Appreciate the hearing.
Welcome, Secretary Vilsack, good to have you here. We had a
good process last year that worked successfully and quickly,
and--kind of the way the place is supposed to, which was pretty
amazing in and of itself, and I give that applause to the
chairman. I look forward to working with you on this year's
budget. I noted, in a cursory review of it, you've worked to
reform your budget, cutting some places, putting higher
priority on others, which is the way I think we ought to look
at things. If you've got a high priority, put the money there,
but don't just ask for more money; get it from somewhere else
in the budget. We may have some questions with you about where
you got it, and have some suggestions as to other places that
you may get it from, but I applaud that route of going.
I've got two suggestions to you that we're going to be
working on. One is on the agriculture development budget. And
here, this is one that's going on in another committee, but I
really think you've--you're the one that's got the expertise on
it. You're seeing a lot of agriculture development work
starting in other sectors of the budget, particularly AID, and
I think you're the one with the primary expertise--or you and
the land grant university system. I would really--and we're
going to be pushing this in other sectors, as to ways that we
can see that budget fit better together.
Gates Foundation and others are really stepping up in this
field. They stepped up in the health field on developing
countries, and together we've had a huge drop in AIDS deaths
overseas. Malaria is getting more under control, not completely
by any means. And this is the best foreign policy tool we've
got, when you save somebody's life. The next step in that is
agriculture development, and to see it to development. And this
is a historic role that places like Iowa State, K State,
Missouri, Wisconsin, others have played for many years. But,
you've got, I think, the best connection to them, and I'd
really like to see us--what we can do on that.
And the final one that I think is key--and you've--got it
in my opening statement here--is the next generation on
biofuels. There's just no question that this is a big deal for
us in farm country. I was at an ethanol plant the other day
that's feeding wet distiller's grain. They can sell at 30 cents
cheaper than if you have to dry it. They're taking the
CO2 straight to an oil field for recharge purposes.
I was at NREL in Golden, Colorado, where they're working on the
cellulosic ethanol. They believe they can make it as price
effective with grain ethanol by 2012. And I think that's going
to really help us in agriculture, having a grain stream and a
cellulosic stream probably under the same plant. And I can't
think of a bigger thing for us to work on for market
development and share than this next generation on biofuels,
bio-based products.
I had a group the other day--a PCA--hand me a some
ChapStick that was made out of soy oil. I had a guy a few years
ago hand me a blue rock, a skeet, that was made out of
cornstarch. You know, just little widgets, little tiny market
segments, but all of them add up, all of them add to renewable
uses, and they're good products.
And I just--I really think that's one that, if we're going
to serve the farmers in rural areas of this country, I'd--there
is not a better place for us to invest time and effort and
focus and research dollars. And you've got the lion's share of
that, even though other areas are working on it. And I really
hope we can working with you on those.
Chairman, I look forward to the comments and the questions.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Brownback.
And now we turn to you, Mr. Secretary, for your statement.
summary statement of secretary thomas vilsack
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And,
to the members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today.
As the chair indicated, I'm here with Deputy Secretary
Merrigan and Mr. Steele in an effort to educate the
subcommittee on our priorities.
Let me say that we started this budget process with four
frames in mind. The first frame is a recognition of the
economic difficulties the country currently faces, which is
reflected in our continuation of support programs like SNAP and
WIC, our food assistance programs, which make up 70 percent of
our budget. We will continue to provide the nutritional
assistance necessary to take care of America's families.
As was mentioned by both the chair and Senator Brownback,
we also recognize the fiscal challenge that this country faces,
and that the Senate and House face in putting a budget
together, which is why we made an effort to try to propose a
budget with reductions in discretionary spending recognizing
full well that there are difficult and tough choices that have
to be made by this subcommittee, by this Congress. We laid out
what we believed would be the appropriate choices, but are
certainly open to working with this subcommittee and the House
committee on thoughts and ideas that you all have.
I will tell you that we were also struck by the state of
the rural economy. While the country has faced a recession for
the last 2 years, I think I can make the case that rural
America has faced a recession for a number of decades. If you
take a look at the statistics, what you'll see is, in rural
America, there is a higher poverty rate; a higher unemployment
rate; a loss of population, with over 50 percent of rural
counties having lost population in the last decade. The facts
are fairly clear that they are less educated, in terms of
college educated and high school educated individuals, living
in rural America. And there is a graying of rural America, an
aging of rural America. All of which is reflected also in
statistics relative to farms, where we saw a 30 percent
increase in the number of farmers over the age 75, and a 20
percent decrease in the number of farmers under the age of 25.
For that reason, we are proposing and suggesting a slightly
different direction as it relates to rural development. We
believe that we need to focus less on individual community and
project-by-project efforts, and focus more on recognizing that
smaller communities are part of a regional economy, and looking
for ways in which we can bolster the regional economy in order
to create greater activity. Now, we think that this is a
strategy that--a number of communities have banded together in
other parts of the country and are seeing positive results.
We think this rural strategy and this regional strategy
should be focused on five basic pillars. First of all, a
continuation of the efforts that this Congress appropriated, in
terms of expansion of broadband to all parts of America, both
rural and remote areas, and the opportunities that presents.
Second, as Senator Brownback indicated, a real focus on
biofuels and bio-based products and the energy potential that
can be created in our farm fields, recognizing that this needs
to be not just focused in one part or one region of the
country, but, as our Biofuels Task Force report indicates, an
opportunity for us to have regional economic opportunity in all
parts of the country by using a variety of feedstocks to create
biofuels and bio-based products. This can happen in all parts
of the country, and it actually can create greater energy
security for this country, promote national security, and also
significantly help the rural economy.
We think there is also a need for us to continue an effort
to link local production and local consumption of farm
products, creating opportunities for schools, hospitals,
prisons, and the like, to be able to purchase locally produced
food in order to keep the wealth in the region and in the
community. The establishment of the ecosystem markets under the
2008 farm bill creates an extraordinary opportunity for us to
focus on water, carbon, and habitat protection as another
alternative income source for farm families across the country.
And finally, an aggressive effort in forest restoration and
private land conservation. We see this budget, in terms of
conservation, as actually historic, in the sense that we will
propose extending conservation programs to over 305 million
acres, an increase of about 10 percent, also focusing those
acres in programs that really matter, in terms of creating more
habitat, which, in turn, will create more hunting and fishing
opportunities, which is often an overlooked economic
opportunity in rural America.
These five pillars, we believe, can create higher incomes,
better-paying jobs, and attract young people to stay and to
come to rural communities. We'd like the opportunity to prove
that case to you with the proposal that we have set forth in
our budget.
This process will be aided by our focus on research and
development. Recognizing the need for competitive grants, we
have maintained the formula funding for our research efforts,
but have suggested that there needs to be a real competition
for other research dollars. And so, we have proposed a record
amount of competitive grants, focused in four or five major
areas: the energy area, as was mentioned; the need for us to
continue to look for ways in which we can increase productivity
and protection of crops and animals from disease and pests and
invasive species; a focus on food safety; a focus on obesity
and nutrition; and finally, a focus on the capacity of
agriculture to adapt and mitigate to changing climates.
Given the First Lady's Let's Move Initiative, we believe
the last frame reflected in our budget stems from the
centerpiece of her Let's Move effort--the legislative
centerpiece--which is the reauthorization of child nutrition
proposals. An opportunity to substantially expand efforts in
the school lunch and school breakfast programs gives us an
opportunity to add more fruits and vegetables in the diets of
our young people, responding to the very serious obesity
epidemic we now face, as well as a strategy for dealing with
the fact that we still, yet today, in this rich and powerful
country, have hungry children.
We also recognize the responsibility that we have at USDA
to provide the safest and most abundant and most affordable
food supply. And so, there is continued emphasis on food
safety, with a focus on increased prevention; better
surveillance and risk assessment; and more rapid response,
recall, and recovery. While there is a small budget increase in
food safety, there has been a tremendous amount of effort and
focus on the regulatory side of food safety, in an effort to
better utilize the resources that Congress has provided.
prepared statements
We believe this is a good budget, a strong budget, a budget
that has elements of reform and responds to the challenges that
we face in rural America. And we look forward to the
opportunity to answer your questions.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Vilsack
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you as Secretary of
Agriculture to discuss the administration's priorities for the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and provide you an overview of the
President's 2011 budget. I am joined today by Deputy Secretary Kathleen
Merrigan and Scott Steele, USDA's Budget Officer.
I don't need to tell you that the American people have been
struggling through the most serious economic recession since the Great
Depression. Families have been forced to make difficult decisions in
the face of unprecedented job losses. The immediate effects of being
unemployed are felt deeply by the unemployed and their families. We
have seen more and more Americans relying on USDA to help put food on
the table.
The challenges facing rural communities for decades have grown more
acute, which is why the Obama administration is committed to new
approaches to strengthen rural America. Rural Americans earn less than
their urban counterparts, and are more likely to live in poverty. More
rural Americans are over the age of 65, they have completed fewer years
of school, and more than half of America's rural counties are losing
population.
This year, President Obama took steps to bring us back from the
brink of a depression and grow the economy again. But with the
unsustainable fiscal policies over the past decade, it's time to get
our fiscal house in order.
The President has announced the 3-year, non-security discretionary
spending freeze for the remainder of his term. This is a freeze on the
bottom line rather than an across-the-board freeze on all line items in
the budget, which provides the flexibility to achieve high priority
goals by reducing funding for lower priority, duplicative, or non-
performing programs. USDA's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget is a
reflection of that policy, essentially freezing funding for on-going
discretionary programs at the fiscal year 2010 level. When limits
placed on select programs and efforts to eliminate earmarks and one-
time funding are taken into account, USDA's total discretionary budget
authority is reduced by over $1 billion. The decrease is primarily due
to reductions in one-time funding such as earmarks, supplementals,
rescissions, and targeted program reductions. However, USDA's total
budget authority request pending before this subcommittee proposes a
total of $129.6 billion in 2011, up from $119.3 billion in 2010,
primarily due to an anticipated increase in nutrition assistance
program participation and mandatory expenditures for crop insurance.
The discretionary appropriation request for this subcommittee is $21.5
billion, which is comparable to the $21.7 billion enacted for 2010.
The 2011 budget request supports the administration's vision for a
strong rural America through the achievement of four strategic goals.
Achievement of these goals will ensure that all of America's children
have access to safe, nutritious, and balanced meals; create new
economic opportunities for increasing prosperity; strengthen
agricultural production and profitability through the promotion of
exports with a specific emphasis on biotechnology while responding to
the challenge of global food security; and ensure the Nation's national
forests and private working lands are conserved, restored, and made
more resilient to climate change, while enhancing our water resources.
With the help of this subcommittee and the funding provided by the
Recovery Act, USDA has been able to achieve significant accomplishments
over the past year. Some of these accomplishments include:
--SNAP has improved the diets of more than 38 million low-income
people now served by the program;
--The financial distress of over 2,600 producers in 47 States has
been relieved through direct farm operating loans. Nearly 20
percent of beginning farmers and socially disadvantaged
producers obtain at least part of their credit needs from USDA;
--Critical rural infrastructure improvements have been made that will
provide nearly 1 million Americans with improved access to safe
drinking water, improve facilities for 655 communities,
including many that provide healthcare service and educational
opportunities, and create 84,000 housing opportunities for
families. USDA has made investments to improve watershed and
flood control on 37,000 acres in 36 States. These actions have
created thousands of jobs, while investing in projects that
will provide benefits for years; and,
--USDA has made available $2.5 billion to expand and enhance the
Nation's access to broadband services. USDA has taken a
particular interest in addressing the needs of unserved and
underserved rural areas. Broadband projects will support anchor
institutions--such as libraries, public buildings and community
centers--that are necessary for the viability of rural
communities. USDA announced initial awards of $54 million in
December 2009. A second USDA announcement of $310 million was
made on January 25, 2010. A third USDA announcement of $277
million was recently made on February 17, 2010. The second
solicitation of applications was published in the Federal
Register on January 22, 2010; applications are being accepted
through March 15, 2010. This funding will open the door to new
businesses that serve global as well as local customers as well
as improve the educational and medical opportunities for rural
residents.
ensuring that all of america's children have access to safe,
nutritious, and balanced meals
A major priority for the Department is ensuring a plentiful supply
of safe and nutritious food, which is essential to the well-being of
every family and the healthy development of every child in America. A
recent report by the Department showed that in over 500,000 families
with children in 2008, one or more children simply do not get enough to
eat. There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating that children
who eat poorly or who engage in too little physical activity do not
perform as well as they could academically, and that improvements in
nutrition and physical activity can result in improvements in academic
performance. Too many children also have poor diets and gain excessive
weight. Recent data shows that the prevalence of obesity has increased
over 10 percent, to a level of 17 percent for children between 6 and 19
years of age. There is also a paradox that hungry children are
disproportionately prone to obesity. Having poor access to healthy food
contributes significantly to both of these problems.
Nutrition Assistance
The budget fully funds the expected requirements for the
Department's three major nutrition assistance programs--the National
School Lunch Program, WIC, and SNAP--and proposes $10 billion over 10
years to strengthen the Child Nutrition and WIC programs through
reauthorization.
School lunch participation is estimated to reach a record-level
again in 2011, 32.6 million children each day, up from about 32.1
million a day in 2010. This is consistent with the increase in the
school age population.
The reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Programs presents us
with an important opportunity to combat child hunger and improve the
health and nutrition of children across the Nation. The 2011 budget
proposes a historic investment of $10 billion in additional funding
over 10 years to improve our Child Nutrition Programs and WIC. It is
designed to significantly reduce the barriers that keep children from
participating in school nutrition programs, improve the quality of
school meals and the health of the school environment, and enhance
program performance. Funding will be used to improve the quality of the
National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, increase the number of
kids participating, and ensure schools have the resources they need to
make program changes. With this investment, additional fruits,
vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat dairy products will be served in
all school cafeterias and an additional one million students will be
served through school lunch programs in the next 5 years. Improving
these programs directly supports the First Lady's ``Let's Move''
campaign aimed at achieving the ambitious national goal of solving the
challenge of childhood obesity within a generation so that children
born today will reach adulthood at a healthy weight.
To ensure USDA makes progress to decrease the prevalence of obesity
among children and adolescents, and to improve the quality of diets,
the budget includes an increase of $9 million. The increase will allow
USDA to strengthen systematic review of basic, applied, and consumer
research that provides the information necessary to answer questions
about diet, health, education, and nutrition-related behaviors. This
will ensure that that USDA and other Federal agencies can describe the
best nutritional behaviors and develop the best ways of communicating
this information to help Americans improve their diets. The increased
funding will also be used to create more effective nutrition education
interventions for schools and communities, and broaden and maintain
tools and systems that Americans can use to adopt more healthful eating
and active lifestyles, in particular reducing overweight and obesity.
The 2011 budget includes an increase of $50 million for research
through AFRI that will focus on identifying behavioral factors that
influence obesity and conducting nutrition research that leads to the
development of effective programs to prevent obesity. AFRI funding will
also focus research on addressing the micronutrient content of new food
crops and improving the nutritional value of staple crops, fruits and
vegetables through plant breeding leading to greater access to healthy
foods.
The budget includes $7.6 billion for WIC, which will support the
estimated average monthly participation of 10.1 million in 2011, an
increase from an estimated 9.5 million participants in 2010. The
request is $351 million above the 2010 appropriation and supports a
robust contingency fund. Highlights include expanding the breastfeeding
peer counseling program, doubling the size of the breastfeeding
recognition program, supporting Management Information Service
improvements and program research and evaluation, and providing a $2
increase in the value of the fruit and vegetable voucher for children.
WIC administrative activities are also funded, which will facilitate
continued implementation of the revised WIC food packages, required to
be implemented at the beginning of fiscal year 2010. The changes in the
food packages bring recipient diets into better conformance with the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans and feeding recommendations for small
children. Fruits, vegetables and whole grains were added to the WIC
packages, mostly for the first time. Fruit and vegetable consumption is
expected to increase significantly via the new cash value vouchers
recipients will receive, improving nutritional intake, improving long-
term eating habits, and improving the economics for our fruit and
vegetable producers. Recipients will use their new vouchers to purchase
fresh, frozen or canned fruits and vegetables year round.
Participation in SNAP is estimated to be about 40.5 million
participants per month in 2010, and is projected to increase to 43.3
million in 2011. The budget estimates a total of $80.2 billion is
needed in 2011 to fund all expected costs and includes a $5 billion
contingency fund recognizing the uncertainty USDA faces in estimating
actual participation. The Recovery Act increased SNAP benefits $80 a
month for a family of four and will continue until the statutory cost
of living adjustments (COLA) eclipse the Recovery Act benefit levels.
For 2011, we need to continue to support America's families as they
recover from the current economic crisis many of them find themselves
in. Fortunately, SNAP is working as it should with participation
increasing as the people in need increase. However, changes need to be
made to ensure that participants are treated fairly and equitably and
that the resources being delivered foster economic mobility. For these
reasons, we are proposing to improve the accessibility to SNAP. The
main legislative proposal for SNAP would establish a common, national
asset allowance for means test of $10,000 for programs government-wide.
Programs with asset limits currently treat assets inconsistently and
without regard of the need to allow and encourage families to save
toward self-sufficiency. SNAP asset limits have been held for decades
at $2,000 for most households and $3,000 for households with elderly.
In addition, a second proposal would exclude lump sum tax credits to
prevent disruption in eligibility and benefits in the wake of new and
refundable tax credits, and the administrative churning this creates. A
third proposal would extend the Recovery Act provision that waives time
limits for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) for an
additional fiscal year. In total, these changes to SNAP would add $462
million to recipient benefits and SNAP program costs in 2011 with a 5-
year total of $4.5 billion.
The budget also includes increased funding for staffing needed to
strengthen USDA's ability to simplify and improve the nutrition
assistance programs, enhance capacity to improve nutritional outcomes,
and encourage healthy and nutritious diets and expand an obesity
prevention campaign through efforts supported by the Food and Nutrition
Service.
Food Safety
Protecting public health is one of the most important missions of
USDA. Foodborne illness is recognized as a significant public health
problem in the United States. These illnesses can lead to short and
long-term health consequences, and sometimes death. I am firmly
committed to taking the steps necessary to reduce the incidence of
food-borne illness and protect the American people from preventable
illnesses. Over the past year, we have striven to make improvements to
reduce the presence of deadly pathogens and we continue to make
improvements. At USDA, about 8,500 inspectors work in approximately
6,300 slaughtering and processing establishments, import houses, and
other federally regulated facilities to ensure that the Nation's
commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is safe,
wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged. A major focus is
implementing the recommendations of the President's Food Safety Working
Group (FSWG) in accordance with three core food safety principles:
--Preventing harm to consumers;
--Conducting analyses needed for effective food safety inspections
and enforcement; and,
--Identifying and stopping outbreaks of foodborne illness.
The budget includes $1 billion for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service to fully fund inspection activities and implement
recommendations of the FSWG and other initiatives aimed at improving
USDA's public health infrastructure. This includes an increase of $27
million to further implement recommendations of the FSWG and strengthen
our public health information infrastructure. Increased funding will be
used to enhance FSIS' ability to collect, analyze and present food
safety data necessary for improving inspection practices. Additionally,
FSIS will hire more epidemiologists to improve investigations of
foodborne illness and outbreaks in coordination with State officials to
develop ``trace back'' tools and improve record-keeping. These
improvements will decrease the time necessary to identify and respond
to foodborne illness outbreaks, which will better protect consumers by
improving our capability of identifying and addressing food safety
hazards and preventing foodborne illness.
USDA research continually works to meet the evolving threats to the
Nation's food supply and focuses on the reduction of the hazards of
both introduced and naturally occurring toxins in foods and feed. As
part of an integrated food safety research initiative, the budget
proposes an increase of $25 million, including $20 million for AFRI and
$5 million for the Agricultural Research Service. This initiative will
strengthen surveillance and epidemiology programs, develop improved
methods for controlling food pathogens in the preharvest stage, develop
innovative intervention strategies to eliminate pathogens and
contaminants, and improve technologies for ensuring postharvest safety
and quality.
Minimizing the Impact of Major Animal and Plant Diseases and Pests
The budget includes $875 million in appropriated funds for the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to protect
agricultural health by minimizing major diseases and pests. APHIS
activities that contribute to this goal include pest and disease
exclusion, plant and animal health monitoring, response to outbreaks of
foreign plant and animal threats, and management of endemic pests and
diseases. Of note, the 2011 budget includes $11 million to continue
efforts initiated with emergency funding to address the light brown
apple moth (LBAM). This is an increase of $10 million compared to 2010.
The LBAM is an invasive pest that attacks a wide variety of plants of
agricultural or horticultural significance. APHIS estimates the pest
could cause annual production losses up to $1 billion if allowed to
spread.
assisting rural communities to create prosperity
The economic downturn has impacted many sectors and areas of the
Nation, including rural America. At this time, there remains high
poverty in sparsely populated rural areas, which is reflected in higher
mortality rates for children, higher unemployment, and declining
populations. Since the beginning of the economic slowdown, rural
residents have experienced a greater decline in real income compared to
other parts of the Nation. Some factors contributing to this include
lower rural educational attainment, less competition for workers among
rural employers, and fewer highly skilled jobs in the rural
occupational mix. It is not surprising that over 51 percent of rural
counties lost population and that a majority of farm families rely on a
significant amount of off-farm income to meet their needs. However, an
energetic and creative citizenry is looking for new ways to spur rural
economic activity to create prosperity and strengthen the economic
foundations of their communities.
After a year as the United States Secretary of Agriculture, I have
reached the conclusion that we must overhaul our approach to economic
development in rural America. During the past year, at the instruction
of President Obama, I worked on the elements of a new rural economy
built on a combination of the successful strategies of today and the
compelling opportunities of tomorrow. The framework of the new effort
recognizes that the rural economy of tomorrow will be a regional
economy. No one community will prosper in isolation. Further, USDA must
help create economic opportunities in America's rural communities by
expanding broadband access, promoting renewable energy, increasing
agricultural exports, taking advantage of ecosystem markets,
capitalizing on outdoor recreation, pursuing research and development,
and linking local farm production to local consumption. The common goal
is to help create thriving rural communities where people want to live
and raise families and where the children have economic opportunities
and a bright future.
The 2011 budget will assist rural communities to create prosperity
so they are self-sustaining, economically thriving, and growing in
population. With the assistance of the committee, we have already taken
important steps in this effort. With funding from the Recovery Act, we
supported farmers and ranchers and helped rural businesses create jobs.
Investments were made in broadband, renewable energy, hospitals, water
and waste water systems, and other critical infrastructure that will
serve as a lasting foundation to ensure the long-term economic health
of families in Rural America.
This budget includes almost $26 billion to build on this progress
and focuses on new opportunities presented by producing renewable
energy, developing local and regional food systems, capitalizing on
environmental markets and making better use of Federal programs through
regional planning.
Facilitating the Development of Renewable Energy
On February 4, 2010, the President laid out his strategy to advance
the development and commercialization of a biofuels industry to meet or
exceed the Nation's biofuels targets. Advancing biomass and biofuel
production that holds the potential to create green jobs, which is one
of the many ways the Obama administration is working to rebuild and
revitalize rural America. In support of this effort, USDA's budget
includes funding for a variety of renewable energy programs across the
Department. These programs help ensure that farmers and ranchers are
able to capitalize on emerging markets for clean renewable fuels and
help America achieve energy independence and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
The 2008 farm bill provided significant mandatory funding to
support the commercialization of renewable energy. The 2011 budget
builds on this investment by providing an increase of $17 million in
budget authority to support $50 million in loan guarantees for the
Biorefinery Assistance Program. The budget also maintains the budget
authority for the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) at $39.3
million. The budget allocates most of the funding to grants rather than
loans, because grant applicants will be able to more efficiently
leverage greater amounts of private sector investment.
The Department will also focus additional research investments on
the production of energy crops and the development of renewable energy
processing. The 2011 budget includes an increase of $33 million for a
comprehensive research program in alternative and renewable energy
within the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) competitive
grant program. This will advance the development of dedicated,
bioenergy feedstocks, and feedstock production. The budget also
proposes an increase of $10 million for in-house research for the
establishment of regional biofuels centers dedicated to the development
of energy feedstocks and bioenergy feedstock production systems for
different regions across the Nation.
Developing Local and Regional Food Systems
With the growing interest among consumers in eating healthy foods
and knowing where their food comes from, promoting local and regional
food systems can offer win-win solutions for all involved.
USDA's ``Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food'' Initiative will work to
reduce the barriers to local and regional food production, such as the
lack of local meat processing and packing capacity, and promote
opportunities to increase local and regional food production and
purchasing, such as supporting school purchases of local and regional
foods.
There exists great potential to create new economic opportunities
for rural America by strengthening local and regional food systems.
Currently, many communities across America have limited access to
healthy foods, which can contribute to a poor diet and can lead to
higher levels of obesity and other diet-related diseases, such as
diabetes and heart disease. Most often, these communities are also
economically distressed and less attractive to grocery stores and other
retailers of healthy food.
To address this problem, the Departments of Agriculture, Health and
Human Services, and Treasury will implement the Healthy Food Financing
Initiative to provide incentives for food entrepreneurs to bring
grocery stores and other healthy food retailers to underserved
communities. Under this initiative, over $400 million will be made
available in financial and technical assistance to community
development financial institutions, other nonprofits, public agencies,
and businesses with sound strategies for addressing the healthy food
needs of communities. For USDA, the budget includes about $50 million
in budget authority for loans, grants, and technical assistance to
support local and regional efforts to increase access to healthy food,
particularly for the development of grocery stores and other healthy
food retailers in urban and rural food deserts and other underserved
areas.
Capitalizing on Environmental Markets
As America's farms and forests hold a tremendous potential for
sequestering carbon, improving water quality, and preserving
biodiversity the budget requests the resources necessary to conduct
government-wide coordination activities that will serve as the
foundation for the establishment of markets for these ecosystem
services.
Through the Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets and the Office
of the Chief Economist, the Department will establish technical
guidelines that outline science-based methods to measure the
environmental services benefits from conservation and land management,
pursuant to the 2008 farm bill.
USDA conducts research that contributes to the development of
climate change mitigation and adaptation tools and technologies, and
USDA outreach and extension networks make them available to farmers,
ranchers, and land managers. The 2011 budget includes an increase of
$50 million within AFRI for global climate change research to develop
mitigation capabilities and adaptive capacities for agricultural
production. The budget also proposes an additional $5.4 million for ARS
to conduct research that will increase the resilience of crops so they
can thrive in variable and extreme environments, as well as focus on
mitigating the effects of climate change by ensuring the availability
of water through improved management.
Regional Innovation Initiative
In addition to these priorities, the 2011 budget maintains support
for USDA's key rural development programs, including $12 billion for
single family housing loan guarantees and nearly $1 billion in
guarantees for business and industry loans. These programs not only
provide needed assistance to rural families and the capital needed to
create jobs, they also create the foundation needed to improve rural
markets and communities which is essential for long-term economic
growth.
In order to utilize the Federal Government's assets more
effectively, USDA's Rural Innovation Initiative will promote economic
opportunity and job creation in rural communities through increased
regional planning among Federal, State, local and private entities. By
creating a regional focus and increasing collaboration with other
Federal agencies, USDA resources will have a larger impact, enabling
greater wealth creation, quality of life improvements, and
sustainability.
To support this initiative, USDA requests authority to set aside up
to 5 percent of the funding within approximately 20 existing programs,
approximately $280 million in loans and grants, and allocate these
funds competitively among regional pilot projects tailored to local
needs and opportunities. This will encourage regional planning and
coordination of projects that are of common interest throughout self-
defined regions. This approach will also support projects that are more
viable over a broader region than scattered projects that serve only a
limited area. It will also help build the identity of regions, which
could make the region more attractive for new business development, and
provide greater incentives for residents to remain within their home
area.
Broadband
Although funding for broadband under the Recovery Act will end in
2010, USDA will continue to make broadband loans and grants under the
authorities provided by the 2002 farm bill, as amended by the 2008 farm
bill. The 2011 budget provides $418 million in loans and grants for
this purpose.
promote agricultural production and biotechnology exports as america
works to increase food security
We will also give priority to promoting the production of food,
feed, fiber, and fuel, as well as increased exports of food and
agricultural products, as we work to strengthen the agricultural
economy for farmers and ranchers. America's farmers and ranchers are
the most productive and efficient in the world and the U.S.
agricultural sector produces $300 billion worth of farm products
providing a major foundation for prosperity in rural areas as well as a
critical element of the Nation's economy.
The Department provides a strong set of financial safety net
programs to ensure the continued economic viability and productivity of
production agriculture, including farm income and commodity support
programs, crop insurance and disaster assistance, as well as other
programs. The farm safety net is critically important and provides the
foundation for economic prosperity in rural America. For 2011, USDA
estimates that roughly $17 billion in total direct support will be
provided to farm producers and landowners through a variety of
programs.
Recognizing the need to reduce the deficit, the budget proposes to
better target direct payments to those who need and can benefit from
them most as well as cap total payments paid to larger operations. For
2011, legislation will be proposed to build on reforms made by the 2008
farm bill by reducing the cap on direct payments by 25 percent and
reducing the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) payment eligibility limits for
farm and non-farm income by $250,000 over 3 years. The savings from
these proposals will impact approximately 30,000 program participants,
which is about 2 percent of the 1.3 million total program participants,
and will over time comprise less than 2 percent of the total direct
support the Department expects to provide annually to farm producers
and landowners.
The Federal crop insurance program is an important part of the farm
safety net. It allows producers to proactively manage their risks
associated with losses from weather, pests and diseases, and financial
risks associated with price fluctuations. The stability provided by
crop insurance has become an important factor used by commercial banks
to determine the credit worthiness of their agricultural borrowers.
The budget also reflects savings expected to be achieved through
reforms in the Federal crop insurance program the changes we are
proposing will help protect farmers from higher costs, rein in costs
for taxpayers, improve access to crop insurance and provide greater
protection from crop losses. Negotiations are currently underway with
the crop insurance industry to restructure the contract that governs
their delivery of the crop insurance program. The proposed new Standard
Reinsurance Agreement (SRA) includes six primary objectives, which will
(1) maintain producer access to critical risk management tools; (2)
realign administrative and operating subsidies paid to insurance
companies closer to actual delivery costs; (3) provide a reasonable
rate of return to the insurance companies; (4) equalize reinsurance
performance across States to more effectively reach under-served
producers, commodities, and areas; (5) enhance program integrity; and
(6) simplify provisions to make the SRA more understandable and
transparent.
These objectives align with RMA's primary mission to help producers
manage the significant risks associated with agriculture. By achieving
these six objectives, the new SRA will ensure financial stability for
the program and the producers it serves, while increasing the
availability and effectiveness of the program for more producers and
making the program more transparent. The new agreement will also
provide insurance companies with greater flexibility for their
operations and financial incentives to increase service to underserved
producers and areas, while ensuring that taxpayers are well-served by
the program.
National Export Initiative
Agricultural trade contributes directly to the prosperity of local
and regional economies across rural America through higher commodity
prices and increased sales. USDA estimates that every $1 billion worth
of agricultural exports supports 9,000 jobs and generates an additional
$1.4 billion in economic activity. At the same time, however, foreign
trade barriers limit exports, thereby reducing farm income and
preventing job growth in the agricultural sector.
USDA has an important role in expanding export opportunities for
our food and agricultural products. As part of the administration's
National Export Initiative, the budget proposes increased discretionary
funding of $54 million to enhance USDA's export promotion activities.
The initiative includes increases of $34.5 million to supplement
funding for the Foreign Market Development Program--commonly known as
the Cooperator Program--and $9 million for the Technical Assistance for
Specialty Crops Program. This funding will be in addition to that
provided to the programs by the Commodity Credit Corporation and will
double the level of funding available to the programs in 2011.
Increased funding of $10 million is also requested for the Foreign
Agricultural Service, which will be used to expand export assistance
activities, in-country promotions, and trade enforcement activities to
remove non-tariff trade barriers, such as unwarranted sanitary and
phytosanitary standards and technical barriers to trade imposed on U.S.
commodities by other countries.
Research To Improve Agricultural Productivity
For 2011, the budget provides almost $800 million for research
aimed at improving agricultural productivity and protecting agriculture
from pests and disease that limit the productive capacity of
agriculture. The proposed research will improve genetic resources and
cultivars that will lead to improved germplasm and varieties with
higher yields, improved disease and pest resistance, and resilience to
weather extremes such as high temperature and drought. The budget also
funds several initiatives to support research on breeding and germplasm
improvement in livestock which will enhance food security and lead to
the development of preventive measures to combat diseases and thereby
increase production. The budget also includes a 56 percent increase for
the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) programs
aimed at helping farmers and ranchers adopt practices that are
profitable and beneficial to communities. As part of this increase, the
2011 budget proposes funding for the Federal-State Matching Grant SARE
Program to assist in the establishment and enhancement of State
sustainable agriculture research, education and extension programs. The
matching requirement will leverage State or private funds and build the
capabilities of American agriculture in becoming more productive and
sustainable.
As the world population grows and the demand for food with it, we
must look to new technologies for increasing production, including
biotechnology. Biotechnology can expand the options available to
agricultural producers seeking solutions to a variety of challenges,
including climate change. However, prudent steps must be taken to
ensure that biotech products are safely introduced and controlled in
commerce. For 2011, the budget requests $19 million, an increase of 46
percent, to strengthen USDA's science-based regulatory system for
ensuring the safe introduction and control of biotechnology products.
This includes preventing regulated genetically engineered products from
being co-mingled with non-regulated products and to ensure the safe
introduction of biotechnology products. USDA will also continue to
provide technical input for the development of science-based regulatory
policies in developing countries. By promoting consistency between the
domestic regulatory system and the import policies of our trading
partners, the likelihood of the United States being the supplier of
choice improves as markets for these products grow.
Increasing Global Food Security
Recent estimates from the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization suggest that more than one billion people around the world
are chronically hungry, many of them children.
A productive agricultural sector is critical to increasing global
food security. USDA plays a major role in helping American farmers and
ranchers improve the efficiency of agricultural production, including
the safe use of biotechnology and other emergent technologies. New
technologies and production practices can enhance food security around
the world by increasing the availability of food as well as providing
developing nations tools for increasing their self reliance and giving
them greater control over their production decisions.
For 2011, the budget includes approximately $2.1 billion in
emergency and non-emergency foreign food assistance programs carried
out by USDA and USAID, and capacity building programs. Through the
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Program, which is administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service,
USDA will assist an estimated 5 million women and children in some of
the world's poorest countries.
In support of agricultural reconstruction and stabilization
activities in Afghanistan, USDA is increasing the number of
agricultural experts serving in Afghanistan from 14 to 64 in 2010. The
work of these courageous individuals is essential for stabilizing
strategic areas of the country, building government capacity, ensuring
the successful management of assistance programs, and addressing the
issue of food insecurity. It is estimated that as much as 80 percent of
the Afghan population relies on agriculture for wages and sustenance.
Consistent with these efforts, the Department has established a
priority for increasing the number of Afghan provinces in which women
and children are food secure from 10 to 14 by the end of 2011, ensuring
food security for 41 percent of the country's provinces by the end of
2011.
An important means to assist developing countries to enhance their
agricultural capacity is by providing training and collaborated
research opportunities in the United States, where participants can
improve their knowledge and skills. The 2011 budget provides increased
funding for the Cochran and Borlaug Fellowship Programs, which bring
foreign agricultural researchers, policy officials, and other
specialists to the United States for training in a wide variety of
fields. Under our proposals, as many as 600 individuals will be able to
participate in these programs and bring this knowledge home with them
to benefit their respective countries.
In addition, the Department is working with other Federal partners
to reduce global food insecurity and increase agriculture-led economic
growth in developing countries. These combined efforts will not only
ensure that the world's children have enough to eat, but will improve
national security as well. By promoting strong agricultural systems in
the developing world, we will eliminate some of the primary causes that
fuel political instability and diminish the economic vitality of
developing nations.
ensuring private working lands are conserved, restored, and made more
resilient to climate change, while enhancing our water resources
USDA plays a pivotal role in working with farmers and ranchers to
protect and restore private working lands, while making them more
resilient to threats and enhancing our natural resources. USDA partners
with private landowners to help protect the Nation's 1.3 billion acres
of farm, ranch, and private forestlands.
The budget includes record levels of support for conservation
programs, bringing total funding to about $6 billion, which includes $5
billion in mandatory funding for the conservation programs authorized
in the 2008 farm bill and nearly $1 billion in discretionary funding
for other conservation activities, primarily technical assistance. This
level of funding supports cumulative enrollment of more than 304.6
million acres in farm bill conservation programs, an increase in
enrollment of about 10 percent over 2010.
The budget will accelerate the protection of our natural resources
by strategically targeting funding to high priority program areas. This
includes an increase of $25 million to implement the Strategic
Watershed Action Teams initiative that will target identified
watersheds for a period of 3 to 4 years with the intent of reaching 100
percent of the landowner base in each watershed eligible for farm bill
conservation program assistance. The additive effect of planned and
applied conservation practices would hasten environmental improvement
while keeping production agriculture competitive and profitable.
Research
Underlying the achievement of all of the Department's goals is a
strong research program. Research fuels the transformational change
that rural America needs to excel. To help bring about this change, I
have launched the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA),
which will be a key element in providing the knowledge and technical
advances that will lead to increased productivity, more abundant food
supplies, improved nutrition, safer food, and a cleaner environment.
Agricultural research ultimately leads to increased profitability
for farmers, reduced food costs and greater choice for consumers, and
improved management of the natural resource base. To get more out of
our research, the Department must focus its research and development
components on making sure we do our very best job not just to increase
productivity but also to make sure that we protect what it is they are
growing and raising. The National Institute is going to have a more
focus, in part on improving productivity and also being able to figure
out how we can do a better job of protecting crops and animals from
pests and disease. The more we produce, the healthier we produce, the
better off we will be. If you conduct more research that will enable
farmers to be more productive and improve the protection of their crops
from pests and disease, in concert with protecting the market through
food safety, we will be able to expand domestic markets and increase
export markets.
As I have highlighted a few of the most significant research
initiatives, I would like to point out that the 2011 budget proposes
the largest funding level ever for competitive research with $429
million for AFRI, an increase of $166 million over 2010. AFRI is the
Nation's premier competitive, peer-reviewed research program for
fundamental and applied sciences in agriculture. It is broad in scope
with programs ranging from fundamental science to farm management and
community issues.
The budget also maintains formula funding for research and
extension at 1862, 1890 and 1994 land-grant institutions, schools of
forestry and schools of veterinary medicine at the 2010 level, thereby
maintaining the research infrastructure needed to meet our research
goals. These important capacity building programs will allow
institutions to sustain the matching requirement that many of these
programs have, thereby allowing Federal funds to leverage non-Federal
resources. All of these institutions are also eligible to apply for
AFRI funding to enhance their research efforts.
Management Initiatives
The budget also includes a number of management initiatives that
will improve service delivery, ensure equal access to USDA programs,
and transform USDA into a model organization.
As part of a government-wide effort to improve service delivery and
IT security, the Department will continue to implement improvements to
address vulnerabilities to aging IT systems used for delivering
billions of dollars in farm, conservation, and rural development
program benefits that will result in more reliable, customer-focused
service to producers.
Ensuring that the Department and its programs are open and
transparent is a priority for USDA. Therefore, USDA is proposing to
expand the Office of Advocacy and Outreach, which was established by
the 2008 farm bill, to improve service delivery to historically
underserved groups and will work to improve the productivity and
viability of small, beginning, and socially disadvantaged producers.
In support of my commitment to improve USDA's handling of civil
rights matters, the budget includes funding to ensure that USDA has the
staffing and resources necessary to address its history of civil rights
complaints and seek resolution to claims of discrimination in the
Department's employment practices and program delivery. To demonstrate
this commitment, USDA under my leadership has been aggressively
pursuing resolution to several pending discrimination lawsuits against
the Department. Most notably, USDA and the Department of Justice
reached a settlement of outstanding claims of discrimination by Black
farmers in the Pigford case. Resolution of this litigation is evidence
of the commitment to resolving all of the large civil rights cases at
USDA, including those involving Hispanic, Native American, and women
farmers.
As USDA's workforce interacts directly with the public we serve
every day, the Department's employees are some of our most valuable
assets. To enhance the Department's human resource capabilities, USDA
will focus on improving leadership development, labor relations, human
resources accountability, and veterans and other special employment
programs. Investing in our employees will create an environment that is
more responsive to the Department's broad constituency.
There is no doubt that these tough times call for shared sacrifice.
The American people have tightened their belts and we have done so as
well. We made tough decisions, but this budget reflects our values and
common sense solutions to the problems we face. It makes critical
investments in the American people and in the agricultural economy to
set us on a path to prosperity as we move forward in the 21st century.
I would be pleased to take your questions at this time.
______
Prepared Statement of Phyllis K. Fong, Inspector General
I want to thank Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Brownback for the
opportunity to submit testimony about the Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) Office of Inspector General's (OIG) fiscal year 2011 budget
request. My statement will summarize a number of the most important
oversight projects and investigations we performed in fiscal year 2009
and 2010 to date and present the key elements of the President's fiscal
year 2011 budget request for OIG.
During this period, we issued a total of 78 audit reports regarding
USDA programs and operations. We obtained $131 million in potential
monetary results by reaching management decision with USDA on our
recommendations. In that time period, we reported 866 convictions and
$179 million in potential monetary results as a result of OIG
investigations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Audit monetary impacts are derived from funds put to better use
and questioned/unsupported costs, as established by Congress in the
Inspector General Act of 1978. The components of our investigative
monetary results include fines, recoveries, restitutions, claims
established, and administrative penalties, among others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My statement will begin with an overview of our work to assess and
improve the Department's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(Recovery Act) programs and operations, cover our most significant
recent audit and investigative activities, and conclude with a summary
of the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for OIG.
oig oversight of usda's recovery act activities
The Recovery Act provided USDA with $28 billion in additional
funding for an array of programs and activities. Among the USDA
programs funded by the Recovery Act are farm loans, watershed
protection, nutrition assistance, wildfire management, capital
improvements and maintenance, and rural development. With the
subcommittee's leadership, the Recovery Act also provided OIG with
$22.5 million to oversee the USDA programs funded by the Act; these
funds are available through fiscal year 2013.
In response to this call for additional oversight, in 2009 OIG
modified its audit and investigative programs, added staff to handle
the additional workload, and reprioritized its current work. Along with
expanding the scope of audits already in process, we added 54
additional audits that were specifically designed to address Recovery
Act programs.
Our approach to auditing Recovery Act-funded programs involves
three phases that will be implemented over the next several years. In
the first phase, we are reviewing USDA agencies' documented internal
control procedures relating to Recovery Act programs. In the second
phase, through field reviews, we are evaluating program delivery,
reviewing participants' eligibility, and ensuring Recovery Act funds
are being used for their intended purposes. In the third phase, we will
evaluate program performance measures and how accomplishments and
results are reported by USDA agencies.
As of April 1, 2010, we have issued 12 audits regarding the
Department's Recovery Act programs and operations. Our audits addressed
USDA's internal controls over loan and grant processing, management of
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), actions taken in
response to prior audit recommendations, aquaculture grants, and Forest
Service (FS) contracting and grants management. We have also issued
another six audits relevant to USDA's Recovery Act activities that were
in process when the Act was passed. These audits examined programs that
subsequently received Recovery Act funding, such as the rehabilitation
of flood control dams, broadband loans and grants, nutrition
assistance, and rural development. At present, we have 34 Recovery Act
audits in process, with 10 additional audits scheduled to start in the
coming months.
We have also developed a new reporting process to provide USDA
agency managers with prompt feedback regarding the use of Recovery Act
funds; these ``fast reports'' convey issues to program managers as soon
as they are identified. Fast reports are then consolidated and issued
in a formal, audit report at a later date. As of April 1, 2010, we have
issued 30 fast reports addressing matters such as business and industry
loans, contract issuance and management, Recovery Act reporting,
housing loans, nutrition assistance, farm operating loans, water and
waste disposal grants and loans, and floodplain easements. For example,
the fast report we issued concerning SNAP found the budgetary estimate
for SNAP had increased significantly since the original estimate
included in the Food and Nutrition Service's Recovery Act Plan. The
change was not consistently or timely reported on Recovery.gov and
associated agency Web sites.\2\ The Department agreed to work with the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Recovery Accountability
and Transparency Board to establish a process for changing estimates
reported on these public Web sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The original estimate totaled more than $19.8 billion through
fiscal year 2013. This amount increased to $65.8 billion through fiscal
year 2019 when estimated for the fiscal year 2011 budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Investigation Division has been working to ensure the integrity
of Recovery Act programs by investigating allegations of potential
fraud, preparing to conduct investigations, and implementing a
whistleblower allegation program. To accomplish these goals, we
developed a two-phase approach. As part of the first phase, we are
increasing fraud awareness training for Federal, State, and local
officials involved in the disbursement and administration of Recovery
Act funding from USDA.
In the second phase, we are assessing complaints and referrals OIG
has received to ascertain if criminal investigations should be opened.
As of April 9, 2010, OIG had received 31 referrals relating to USDA
Recovery Act contract awards and 20 complaints to our hotline. Our goal
is to expeditiously evaluate any concerns raised about USDA's Recovery
Act activities and expenditures and ascertain if there is potential
criminal activity or, alternatively, administrative issues. As of April
9, 2010, we had identified no criminal activity in our reviews of
Recovery Act referrals and complaints.
goal 1: strengthen usda's safety and security measures for public
health
One of OIG's most important goals is to protect public health and
ensure the wholesomeness of the food reaching both U.S. consumers and
consumers in foreign markets. In fiscal year 2009 and the first half of
fiscal year 2010, we completed several important oversight projects
related to food safety. We also completed work related to other USDA
activities potentially affecting public safety, such as assessing the
ongoing rehabilitation of aging dams throughout the country.
Evaluating Food Safety Controls Prior to Slaughter of Cattle
In 2008, when videos came to light documenting the abuse of cattle
awaiting slaughter at a meat packing company in Chino, California, the
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) oversaw the company's recall
of approximately 143 million pounds of raw and frozen beef products--
the largest recall in U.S. history. OIG's audit of conditions at the
slaughter facility determined there was not a systemic failure ofFSIS'
inspection process, but that plant personnel acted deliberately to
bypass required inspections.
OIG investigators continue to work closely with the U.S. Attorney's
Office and FSIS to investigate the events that took place at this
facility. Meanwhile, in 2009, OIG audit's work on this beef recall led
to three major audits concerning the quality of beef processed in the
United States.
Evaluating the Recall
Given the unprecedented size and scope of this beef recall, OIG
evaluated whether FSIS effectively oversaw the recall, verifying if the
packing company contacted beef distributors, retrieved the potentially
contaminated meat, and properly disposed of it. We also assessed
whether FSIS had implemented corrective actions in response to
recommendations OIG made in two prior reports on the agency's recall
process.
While FSIS had generally taken appropriate actions in response to
our prior recommendations, we found that FSIS needs to improve how it
evaluates the success of its recalls. To determine if a recall has been
successful, FSIS samples and follows up with distributors who have
received potentially adulterated beef. The agency, however, had no
procedures to replace sampled distributors who were found not to have
actually purchased any of the recalled beef. The size and completeness
of the sample is important because FSIS depends on statistical
projections to support its overall conclusions concerning a recall's
effectiveness.
In this recall, 41 percent of the companies FSIS contacted had not
received the recalled product and therefore should not have been used
to evaluate the recall--some were out of business, some did not sell
meat at all, and others never purchased any of the recalled beef. We
also found that FSIS needs to implement written procedures to ensure
that all of its district offices follow a standardized and
statistically valid process for evaluating recalls. FSIS agreed with
OIG's recommendations to strengthen agency procedures to evaluate
recalls.
Evaluating Controls Over Residues in Cattle
Another public food safety issue facing the United States is the
contamination of meat with residual veterinary drugs, pesticides, and
heavy metals. ``Residue'' of this sort finds its way into the food
supply when producers bring animals to slaughter plants while they have
antibiotics or other drugs in their system. When the animals are
slaughtered, traces of the drugs remain in these animals' meat when
shipped to meat processors and retail supermarkets, and eventually
purchased by consumers. In cooperation with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
FSIS inspectors are required to sample and test animal carcasses to
verify that beef is not contaminated with harmful residue.
Our March 2010 report found that the National Residue Program is
not accomplishing its mission of monitoring the food supply for harmful
residues. For example, FSIS, FDA, and EPA have not established
thresholds for many dangerous substances (e.g., copper or dioxin),
which has resulted in meat with these substances being distributed in
commerce. To address these serious shortcomings in the National Residue
Program, FSIS, EPA, and FDA need to take steps to improve how they
coordinate with one another.
Acting on its own initiative, FSIS can strengthen the National
Residue Program by requiring slaughter plants to increase their
controls when processing dairy cattle and bob veal calves. Our analysis
shows that plants handling these animals were responsible for over 90
percent of residue violations. The agency can also do more to focus on
repeat violators-producers who have a history of bringing to slaughter
animals with residue in their system. FSIS agreed with our findings and
recommendations.
Purchasing Ground Beef for Federal Nutrition Assistance Programs
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) purchases ground beef
products for use in Federal nutrition programs. Our newly released
audit found that the agency had significantly improved its procedures
to ensure that contracted ground beef suppliers comply with purchasing
requirements. However, our audit found that further improvements are
still needed. AMS has not made a formal determination as to whether
ground beef suppliers should be required to obtain bonding or insurance
to safeguard the Department against possible monetary losses resulting
from major product recalls. The agency needs to strengthen its criteria
to hold suppliers accountable for their non-conformances and to
properly track non-conformances to ensure that ground beef suppliers
meet eligibility requirements for continued program participation. In
addition, AMS needed to strengthen its controls over the selection of
product samples for laboratory testing and the laboratory testing
process itself. This would provide increased assurance that ground beef
products purchased for Federal programs meet quality and safety
standards. AMS officials agreed with OIG's findings and
recommendations.
Overseeing the National Organic Program
The public's interest in environmental concerns and food produced
with fewer pesticides and chemicals has led to increased focus on
USDA's National Organic Program. Over the past decade, the organic
industry has grown between 14 and 21 percent annually. In 2008, it sold
more than $24.6 billion in agricultural products. Administered by AMS,
the National Organic Program is responsible for ensuring that when
consumers purchase foods labeled ``USDA organic,'' those foods meet
uniform standards.
Our recent audit of the National Organic Program found that program
officials need to improve their process for handling complaints and
taking appropriate enforcement actions. For example, AMS did not take
enforcement action against a farming operation that marketed nonorganic
mint under USDA's organic label for 2 years. Other farming operations
continued to improperly market their products as organic while AMS
considered enforcement action, which in some cases took as long as 32
months.
Organic products must originate from farms or operations certified
by agents accredited by USDA. These certifying agents grant organic
certification upon determining that an operation's procedures comply
with regulations. We found that AMS did not ensure that its certifying
agents consistently enforced the requirements of the organic program so
that products labeled as organic meet a uniform standard. AMS officials
agreed with OIG's findings and recommendations.
OIG has also investigated criminal schemes to defraud the National
Organic Program. In February 2010, as a result of a joint investigation
involving OIG agents, the owner of an organic commodities company in
Texas was sentenced to 24 months imprisonment and ordered to pay
$520,000 for falsely certifying that conventionally grown crops (grain
sorghum, beans) were organic.
Rehabilitating Aging Dams To Address Public Safety
Since the 1940s, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
has assisted in the construction of more than 11,000 dams, many of
which have reached (or will soon reach) the end of their planned design
lives and need rehabilitation. Congress appropriated over $159 million
from fiscal years 2002 to 2007 to assist dam owners in rehabilitating
these structures, most of which are owned by local governments and
utilities.
Our 2009 audit found that instead of first coordinating with State
dam agencies, NRCS selected dams for assessment as they were
volunteered by their owners, regardless of the potential threat to life
and property or their proximity to the end of the planned design life.
Six years after the program was initiated, NRCS had not assessed 1,345
of 1,711 high-hazard dams (79 percent) and has spent $10.1 million to
assess and rehabilitate lower hazard dams. (The failure of a lower-
hazard dam is unlikely to result in loss of life.) NRCS lacks authority
to compel owners to take any particular action, even in the case of a
dangerous high-hazard dam. NRCS officials agreed with OIG's findings
and recommendations.
OIG Investigations: Food Safety
OIG considers investigations involving food safety our highest
priority due to the potential impact on the health and well-being of
the American public. In our food safety investigations, we typically
see various schemes such as product tampering, adulteration, the
falsification of documents, smuggling, and inhumane slaughter. Within
the last year, we completed a number of noteworthy food safety
investigations as illustrated by the following two cases.
The first involves a Texas food company that schemed to defraud
several Middle Eastern food companies as well as the U.S. military,
which relies on these companies to provide food to its troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan. The owner of this food company forged USDA export
certificates and Halal certificates and directed his employees to wipe
expiration dates off the products and stamp new dates on them. In July
2009, the owner pled guilty to charges that he conspired to defraud the
Government. He was sentenced to serve 24 months in jail and ordered to
pay $3.9 million in restitution to the Federal Government.
The second significant OIG food safety investigation involved the
seizure of smuggled duck and other meat/poultry products aboard cargo
ships at Port Elizabeth, New Jersey. The importer attempted to
illegally bring the products into the United States by not listing them
on the ship's manifest, thereby avoiding USDA inspection. A multi-
agency investigation found that the food products originated from
China, which was prohibited from exporting poultry to the United
States. The owner of the American import company ultimately pled guilty
to conspiracy in February 2010. To date, this investigation has
resulted in Federal fines in excess of $6.7 million being imposed on
several companies and their owners.
Animal Fighting Investigations
Animal fighting is a crime that has gained national attention
recently due to several high-profile investigations. OIG has been
involved in investigating animal fighting for several years because of
the effect these activities have on animal health, as well as human
public health and safety concerns. The animals used in these illegal
activities can introduce diseases into the United States. Individuals
participating in animal fighting operations are also often implicated
in illegal activities involving firearms, drugs, contraband, gambling
and, in some instances, public corruption. In fiscal year 2009 and the
first half of fiscal year 2010, our animal fighting investigations
resulted in 405 individuals being convicted and monetary results of
approximately $223,000.
An OIG investigation disclosed that the former sheriff in Luray,
Virginia, was accepting campaign contributions to protect an illegal
cockfighting and gambling operation at the local sportsman's club. He
was also using his position to conduct other improper activities, such
as misusing inmate labor for personal gain. Due to OIG's investigation,
the sheriff resigned from his position and was ultimately sentenced in
December 2009 to 19 months imprisonment, 2 years of supervised release,
forfeiture of $75,000 to the Federal Government, and approximately
$5,000 in other monetary penalties. The sportsman's club was also fined
and several associated individuals received prison terms ranging up to
18 months.
goal 2: strengthening usda's program integrity and improving the
delivery of benefits
OIG has also completed a number of projects intended to ensure that
USDA programs are reaching the people who most need and are eligible
for program benefits. These projects range from audits verifying the
accuracy of payments made to farmers to investigations resulting in the
prosecution of individuals who defraud SNAP.
Determining the Accuracy of Financial Assistance to Peanut Producers
From 2002 through 2007, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) provided more
than $1 billion in financial assistance to peanut producers. FSA
determines how much assistance is needed based on weekly average peanut
prices published by the National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS). Even very small changes in peanut prices can result in
significant changes in the amount of assistance provided--a penny one
way or the other equals roughly $33 million a year. Our March 2009
audit found that NASS' peanut prices are not based on reliable market
data. Since there is no public commodity market for peanuts, NASS
solicits price data from peanut buyers. Their participation is
voluntary and confidential by law, and NASS does not verify the data
they provide. Without mandatory and verifiable price reporting, FSA has
no assurance that its program payment rates depending on NASS'
published prices correspond to a true market price. FSA officials
generally agreed with OIG's recommendations.
Improving USDA's 2008 Disaster Relief Response
The Disaster Relief and Recovery Supplemental Appropriations Act of
2008 provided USDA with extensive supplemental funding for disaster
relief assistance to individuals and communities affected by the
hurricanes and flooding in the Midwest and South (primarily) that year.
Due to the efforts of this subcommittee and your counterparts in the
House, the Act provided OIG with $5 million in supplemental no-year
funding for oversight of the Department's emergency relief activities.
Our disaster relief oversight program has focused on whether USDA
agencies have implemented the internal control improvements regarding
emergency benefits that OIG recommended after assessing their response
to the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. That experience demonstrated that
management controls regarding emergency assistance eligibility and
program oversight are vital to prevent the waste or misuse of USDA
disaster funding. OIG's audit program for USDA disaster relief
activities programs is assessing the Department's short-term emergency
relief assistance and its longer-term rebuilding efforts. We are
currently reviewing aspects of USDA 2008 disaster relief operations,
such as the Emergency Watershed Protection Program and the Emergency
Conservation Program.
Ensuring That All Farm Loan Recipients Are Treated Fairly
A provision in the 2008 farm bill required OIG to review how FSA
was processing foreclosures to ``socially disadvantaged'' farmers
(i.e., women and minorities) to ensure that all loan recipients were
being treated fairly and in conformity with the law. By analyzing FSA's
actions at critical points in the foreclosure process, we found that
FSA generally followed its established process in servicing and
foreclosing loans to socially disadvantaged borrowers and that the
agency's decisions conformed to applicable laws and regulations. We did
find a few instances where FSA did not technically conform to
prescribed timeframes for some policies and procedures; however, there
was no statistically significant difference between how socially
disadvantaged borrowers were treated compared to the rest of the
population.
OIG Investigations: USDA Benefit and Farm Programs
Ensuring the integrity of benefits provided by USDA programs is the
hallmark of the investigative work we do. OIG investigations of
criminal activity in USDA's nutrition assistance programs resulted in
250 convictions and over $44 million in monetary results in fiscal year
2009. I would like to highlight for the subcommittee several noteworthy
OIG investigations regarding USDA benefit programs that achieved
significant sentencings and/or restitution orders in fiscal year 2009.
--An Illinois store owner and employee conspired with at least five
additional retail grocery stores to illegally exchange SNAP
benefits for cash. Together, the owner and his employee were
sentenced to 83 months of incarceration and ordered to pay $6.3
million in restitution to USDA.
--An Oklahoma entity receiving Child and Adult Care Food Program
benefits made false statements and claims on monthly meal
reimbursement records to fraudulently obtain additional meal
reimbursements. The director was sentenced to 41 months
imprisonment and ordered to pay $1.6 million restitution to the
U.S. Government.
--Kentucky business owners fraudulently used the same collateral to
secure two bank loans guaranteed by USDA's Rural Business
Cooperative Service. In February 2009, the owners pled guilty
to bank fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering and were
sentenced to 27 months and 30 months imprisonment,
respectively. They were ordered to pay $4.5 million in
restitution to USDA and two other entities.
In fiscal year 2009, OIG also completed several investigations into
fraudulent activities involving FSA and Risk Management Agency (RMA)
programs. These are some of the most complex investigations we conduct,
as they often involve large monetary amounts and voluminous
documentation. In this area, OIG found that:
--A Florida farming entity received over $1 million in fraudulent
crop insurance payments. The OIG investigation resulted in the
corporation being ordered in March 2009 to pay $1.1 million in
restitution to USDA. The farmer was ordered to pay in excess of
$460,000 in taxes and penalties to the Internal Revenue
Service.
--A Missouri farmer made false statements to obtain loans, convert
collateral, and commit bank fraud. In September 2009, the
farmer pled guilty to all charges and was sentenced to 9 months
incarceration and ordered to pay $550,000 to the Federal
Government.
goal 3: oig work in support of usda's management improvement
initiatives
OIG continuously monitors risks to USDA programs to assist the
Department in identifying and correcting programmatic concerns, and to
improve overall Department management.
Enhancing the Integrity of the Federal Crop Insurance Program
RMA oversees private companies that sell crop insurance policies to
American farmers. The total liability for this insurance has increased
markedly in recent years--from 2005 to 2009, total liability increased
from $35 billion to approximately $91 billion. OIG found that RMA needs
to take a number of steps to strengthen its oversight of this industry.
Above all, it needs a comprehensive, systematic, and well-defined
strategy for improving the integrity of the crop insurance program,
including a strategy that coordinates the various activities being
conducted by the different RMA divisions. In order to use RMA's limited
compliance resources as effectively as possible, the strategy should
focus those resources on program vulnerabilities, which we recommended
RMA determine by performing a risk assessment. We identified steps RMA
can take to strengthen its oversight of the crop insurance companies
that are responsible for much of the day-to-day operations of the
program. Such steps include improving the agency's review of large
insurance claims and holding the private insurance companies
responsible when RMA finds that they made errors while processing
claims. We continue to work with RMA officials on corrective actions to
address OIG's recommendations.
Strengthening the Security of USDA Information Technology
Over the last decade, USDA has improved its information technology
(IT) security, but many longstanding weaknesses remain. In 2009, the
Department implemented its Cyber Security Assessment and Management
System to provide it with current agency security information and
enhance the Department's oversight capabilities. USDA still needs to
take steps to address a number of security weakness, such as developing
a Department-wide plan for addressing IT security vulnerabilities,
updating software, addressing vulnerabilities, deploying both
encryption and the Federal Desktop Core Configuration, and using
standard security settings. With such a large and diverse Department,
ensuring that all agencies comply with these standards will take time
and resources. The Office of the Chief Information Officer is
continuing to work towards these goals.
Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009
Pursuant to the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and OMB
guidance, Federal OIGs are responsible for annual audits of
departmental and agency financial statements to obtain reasonable
assurance that the financial statements are free of material
misstatements. USDA's fiscal year 2008 and 2009 consolidated financial
statements received an unqualified opinion, as did the fiscal year 2008
and 2009 financial statements for five other USDA entities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Rural Development, Commodity Credit Corporation, FS, Food and
Nutrition Service, and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. NRCS
received a disclaimer of opinion, but this did not change the opinion
for the consolidated statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG Investigations
In order to promote integrity of departmental operations and
activities, OIG has responsibility to investigate incidents of severe
misconduct and potential criminal activity by USDA personnel. The
following OIG investigations involving former USDA personnel resulted
in sentencings in fiscal year 2009:
--A former FS employee in Wisconsin was found to have misused
purchase card convenience checks and misappropriated almost
$320,000 over a 4-year period. In May 2009, she was sentenced
to 12 months incarceration and ordered to pay $320,000 in
restitution to the Federal Government.
--In December 2009, a former FSIS employee was sentenced in the
Southern District of Mississippi to 11 months in prison and 3
years of probation for threatening and pointing an assault
rifle at OIG agents. OIG agents had been sent to interview the
former employee after he made threatening phone calls to the
FSIS Regional Director. The individual pled guilty to one count
of assaulting, resisting, or impeding Federal employees.
goal 4: improving usda's stewardship of natural resources
USDA provides leadership to help America's private landowners and
managers conserve their soil, water, and other natural resources. Our
goal in auditing these activities is to increase the efficiency and
effectiveness with which USDA exercises stewardship over natural
resources.
Encouraging Farmers and Ranchers To Become Good Stewards of the Land
NRCS' Conservation Security Program (CSP) provides financial
assistance to producers who meet the very highest standards of
conservation and environmental management. OIG assessed NRCS' CSP
administration for one fiscal year in which the agency was authorized
$259 million in financial assistance for prior year contracts and new
signups for conservation practices, as well as technical assistance to
develop conservation plans. Of the approximately 4,400 contracts for
the new signups with first year payments totaling $51 million, we
sampled 75 contracts that totaled $11.8 million. We found that half (38
of 75) were given to participants who did not qualify for the program.
NRCS relied on applicants to provide accurate information, but did not
confirm key information that would help verify producer qualifications.
Agency officials agreed with OIG's recommendations and we continue to
work with NRCS on appropriate corrective actions.
Forest Service
Employing approximately 30,000 employees and overseeing 193 million
acres comprising 175 National Forests and Grasslands, the U.S. Forest
Service (FS) is the largest USDA agency. In fiscal year 2008, FS spent
more than $5.8 billion managing and protecting America's natural
resources. Because FS is an extremely decentralized agency that has a
history of weak internal controls, OIG devotes a significant percentage
of its resources to overseeing its operations. The following are brief
descriptions of several of our more noteworthy oversight reviews
pertaining to FS operations.
Purchasing and Maintaining the Aircraft FS Needs To Fight Fires
We reviewed FS' plans for purchasing new aircraft for its
firefighting program, and found that FS did not present the best case
possible to justify buying new aircraft. With an average age of more
than 50 years, more than half of the 44 airtankers available under
contract in 2004 were grounded for safety concerns. By 2012 the
remaining 19 airtankers will begin to be either too expensive to
maintain or no longer airworthy. FS will probably have to purchase
replacement aircraft--at a cost of up to $2.5 billion--rather than
lease airtankers, as it has done in the past. FS agreed with our
recommendations to: (1) collect current aviation performance data to
determine how new aircraft will improve its firefighting performance;
(2) use aviation firefighting performance measures that directly
demonstrate the cost impact of its aging airtanker fleet; and (3)
formally establish an integrated team to take charge of developing the
agency's budget document.
Improving How FS Uses Contracted Labor Crews To Fight Fires
Since FS relies on contractors to fulfill many of its firefighting
responsibilities, we assessed how effectively and efficiently FS is
deploying these resources. We found that FS needs to analyze its
mobilization data from previous seasons to identify trends in how
firefighting labor crews are used in conjunction with other resources
(i.e., aircraft operations, fire engine crews). Analyzing this data
would greatly improve FS' ability to identify more effective deployment
strategies, especially during severe fire seasons when FS' resources
are most taxed. We continue to work with FS to obtain agreement on the
corrective actions.
Evaluating How FS Plans To Replace Its Critical Personnel as They
Retire
FS could face a significant shortage of qualified firefighters as
its workforce ages and firefighters face mandatory retirement. As of
2009, approximately 26 percent of FS' critical firefighters were
eligible to retire. Unless adequate replacements are available, the
nation could face losses to its natural resources and firefighters
could be at increased risk of harm. We concluded that FS has not taken
the necessary steps to ensure it has a sufficient number of qualified
staff to meet its future wildland fire management responsibilities. FS
officials agreed with OIG's findings and recommendations.
oig investigations
In the case of each fatality of an officer or employee of the FS
that occurs by a wildfire entrapment or burnover, OIG is required by
law to conduct an independent investigation.\4\ Thus, when five FS
firefighters fighting the Esperanza Fire died due to a burnover in
October 2006, OIG investigated the circumstances of their deaths. Our
investigation found that there was no evidence of any criminal
wrongdoing involved in the accident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 7 U.S.C. 2270(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG's Wildland Fire Investigation Team will continue to work with
FS to ensure that there is transparency and established procedures for
handling future investigations of this sort.
oig's fiscal year 2011 budget request
Before concluding, I would like to address key elements of the
President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for OIG. We are very
grateful for the support of the administration and of the Congress
particularly the Members of this subcommittee--during this budget
process. Your ongoing support and interest in our work has enabled us
to consistently provide constructive oversight for a wide array of
USDA's extensive programs and operations.
Over the last 5 fiscal years, the total appropriation available for
OIG was approximately $413 million. The potential dollar impact of
OIG's audits and investigations for this same period was $1.36 billion,
resulting in cost savings and recoveries of approximately $3.29 for
every dollar invested in our oversight work.
We respectfully ask that you support the President's fiscal year
2011 request of $90.3 million for OIG. This appropriation would be an
increase of $1.6 million over our fiscal year 2010 level and would
provide:
--$1 million for 2011 mandatory pay costs;
--$162,000 to support investigator training, which includes required
Federal law enforcement training, training peer counselors for
Critical Incident Stress Management, and continuing legal
training to maintain the current professional standards set for
OIG staff;
--$394,000 to support the Council ofInspectors General on Integrity
and Efficiency (CIGIE, or the Council).
Pay cost increases are needed to maintain current staffing levels
to enable OIG to carry out important oversight work in areas such as
food safety, program integrity, and departmental management.
Approximately 86 percent of OIG's budget is dedicated to personnel
compensation. The remaining 14 percent is expended for contract
services and rental fees (7 percent); travel (5 percent); and supplies,
equipment, and telecommunications (2 percent). This leaves very limited
flexibility to OIG managers to absorb mandatory pay increases.
The President's request provides funds to support CIGIE, which is
an organization of 69 Federal IGs established by the Congress via the
IG Reform Act of 2008.\5\ As authorized by the Congress, the Council's
mission is to address integrity, economy, and effectiveness issues that
transcend individual agencies and increase the professionalism of the
IG workforce. USDA OIG is a member of the Council and serves as its
first elected Chair. To fund CIGIE's activities and responsibilities
and fulfill its legislative mission under the IG Reform Act, the
administration has included $394,000 in the budgets of 15 OIGs,
including USDA OIG. Your support for this request is essential to
funding this newly established Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Public Law 110-409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We would be pleased to provide the subcommittee's Members and staff
with any additional information you may require to fully consider the
President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for our office.
This concludes my written statement. I want to again thank the
Chair and Ranking Member for the opportunity to submit testimony for
your consideration.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much for that fine statement.
DAIRY FARMERS
Mr. Secretary, last year dairy farmers in my State of
Wisconsin, and as well as all around the Nation, experienced
the worst downfall in prices in history, as you know. We were
able to provide some direct assistance to dairy farmers in our
bill last year. Can you please update us on what USDA has done
to implement the assistance we provided, other things you have
done to stabilize the dairy sector, as well as your outlook for
the coming year?
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, the dairy outlook is, I
think, much better than it was last year when we were faced
with record low prices. There has been a slight rebound in
prices, and our hope is that that will continue.
We took aggressive steps last year, in the form of
increasing price support, encouraging an expansion of the Dairy
Export Incentive Program to spur exports and to allow us to be
more competitive. We focused on, as you know, rapidly
implementing the support and assistance that Congress provided
at the tail end of the year, distributing roughly $270 million
of the $290 million in cash, that was provided by Congress in
the appropriation to farmers, pursuant to a formula that tried
to mirror the MILC payment structure, with a few modifications
to ensure an equitable distribution of those resources among
all dairy farmers. The balance of the $350 million has been
used in purchasing cheese, in an effort to make sure that all
of the dairy farmers throughout the country have been helped
and assisted through this effort.
I think it's fair to say that we got the resources out, and
in a relatively quick period of time. The cheese purchases have
recently been concluded. And so, at this point, we have
eliminated or utilized all of the resources that Congress has
provided, with the exception of the small percentage of the
cash payments to make sure that, if we made a mistake on a MILC
calculation or payment calculation, that we can correct that
mistake.
Senator Kohl. Thank you Mr. Secretary.
WIC ARRA FUNDS
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided
funding to support increased WIC participation. According to
this budget, not all of this funding has been yet allocated.
Will you use your transfer authority to obligate any of the
remaining funds from the Recovery Act for other nutrition
programs, or will these funds be returned to the Treasury?
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, we are watching very
carefully the resources provided under the Recovery Act, in
terms of nutrition assistance. We are hopeful that we are
making the right set of decisions.
I will say that with SNAP we've seen a rather dramatic
increase in the numbers. We haven't necessarily seen that same
corresponding increase in some of the other programs. And we
are working with States to make sure that, with the tough
budget situations that States face, that they aren't reducing
their administrative assistance and help to get the information
out about these programs. So, we are cautious about
transferring resources from one program to another until we are
confident that the trends we're seeing in SNAP are not all of a
sudden going to be recognized in WIC or some of the other
programs.
Obviously, our goal is to make sure that we do as much as
we possibly can with this nutrition assistance. And the reason
for it is not just to make sure that people have adequate
resources to buy groceries, but also the economic stimulus that
these items represent. For every dollar we spend in the SNAP
program, for example, we know there's $1.84 in economic
activity. We know it has helped to retain jobs in grocery
stores and trucking facilities and processing facilities around
the country. So, we're going to be very careful about how we
manage these resources. Our budget does request additional
resources for WIC; it does focus on additional resources for
breastfeeding, because we know that that leads to a healthier
start for our youngsters. We will continue to monitor this.
WIC BUDGET
Senator Kohl. Just to follow on, the budget includes, as
you know, a big increase for the WIC program, because this
program, as you know, is volatile, as well as essential. Do you
believe the budget is sufficient to cover the demand for the
WIC program, given the recent history of unforeseen food costs,
as well as other problems?
Secretary Vilsack. I do, Mr. Chair, in part because the
rather dramatic increases we've seen in food costs are not
being reflected in the numbers we're seeing for food increases
this year. There has been a moderation of those increases,
number one. On the other hand, we changed the WIC package to
include more nutritious choices and options. And so, we're
obviously focused on making sure that we keep an eye on the
cost of the package, because we want to encourage more
nutrition.
Frankly, what we're also focusing on is expanding the 27
States that are making electronic benefit transfer cards
available to WIC participants. We see this as a way of
encouraging participation and making it easier on families to
be able to utilize these resources in an effective way without
having any stigma attached to it.
Today, 50 percent of America's infants are engaged in the
WIC program. So, it is obviously a very important program for
the nutritional need of America's children.
Senator Kohl. Can you say that again? Fifty percent----
Secretary Vilsack. Yes sir.
Senator Kohl [continuing]. Of America's children?
Secretary Vilsack. Infants, the infants----
Senator Kohl. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. Fifty percent of the
infants born in the United States are in the program.
SNAP STATE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Senator Kohl. Okay. Mr. Secretary, as you are aware,
Congress recently approved additional funding to cover the
costs of State administrative expenses for the SNAP program.
Because of budget constraints, some States have chosen to use
these funds for other programs. I outlined this problem to you
in a recent letter signed by the ranking member and myself.
What is the Department doing to make sure that these funds are
only being used for SNAP? Are there any repercussions to States
for using these funds on other programs?
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity to
visit, informally, with a number of the Nation's Governors
during the recent National Governors Association meeting here
in Washington, to reinforce the message that we are here to
help, but we want to make sure our help is focused and directed
in the proper manner. We have also recently sent correspondence
to the Nation's Governors on the important role that SNAP is
playing, and on making sure that, despite the difficult choices
that they have to make, that they don't misuse these resources.
And we are keeping an eye on it.
We are focused on a couple of States, in particular, who
have had some significant difficulties with the administration
of the SNAP program. Decisions that were made to outsource some
of the administrative activities have not done as well as they
had anticipated. And so, we are working with those States to
make sure that they are focused.
We're also focused on States where the participation rate
has been less than, I would say, optimal. There are States
that, still today, 50 percent of those who qualify for SNAP are
not participating. So, we're encouraging and trying to incent,
recognizing the difficulties and circumstances that Governors
face. Having been in that situation for 8 years in Iowa, 6 of
the 8 years, while Governor I had less money than I had the
year before. So I am somewhat sympathetic, but understand our
responsibility is to make sure those resources are used
appropriately.
Senator Kohl. Did you say there are States that are
eligible for SNAP, but they don't participate?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, they participate, but they don't
actively and aggressively promote the program. So, as a result,
in a number of States, a little over 50 percent of the people
who are eligible to participate in SNAP are, in fact,
participating. It's one of the reasons why we're constantly
looking for ways in which we can assist folks with categorial
eligibility.
In our budget proposal, we're taking a look at the asset
tests. We're taking a look at extending some of the provisions
of the Recovery Act that are working pretty well to provide
that floor, that nutritional floor that SNAP and the nutrition
assistance programs provide. We have seen an increase,
obviously, in the numbers in SNAP. We now have more than 38
million Americans participating in the program. But, if all of
America participated, I think you would see even more
significant numbers.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ETHANOL
There have been proposals kicking around on the Hill to up
the percentage of ethanol in some of the fuel mixtures from 10
percent to 15 percent. I don't know of a better way to move up
ethanol than do something like that. Is there--has the agency
been able to look at that, or weigh in on that debate,
Secretary?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, we have. As you probably know,
the EPA is currently considering adjusting the E10 rate to as
much as E15. They are in the process of working with the
Department of Energy in a series of tests that are being
conducted on a variety of engines. I believe that there's an
indication that, in the later-model vehicles, E15 would work
without significant problems. In some of the older vehicles it
may be a little bit more difficult. And so, they're trying to
figure out precisely where that cutoff point is.
Second, when we put together the Biofuels Task Force
report, recognizing that we wanted to make sure that this
industry was a national industry and not necessarily a regional
industry, we recognized that there were some deficiencies in
our strategy. One deficiency was that there really wasn't
adequate distribution, and that's why it's important, I think,
for us to set up regional efforts so that we can have regional
distribution systems so that this fuel doesn't have to travel
long distances to get to where it can be used.
Second, we saw an overlapping of our research efforts.
Department of Energy was focused on what really wasn't its core
competency, and we were focused on things that weren't our core
competency at USDA. So, we have separated the research
responsibilities, with USDA focused on feedstocks, Department
of Energy focused on conversion efficiency. We're also looking
at ways in which we can focus on the near term, things that
could be implemented within the next 10 years, with the
Department of Energy looking at more of the longer-term
attitude.
So, there is a comprehensive look at this, and we are going
to work as hard as we possibly can to get to that 36-billion-
gallon threshold that you all have set.
Senator Brownback. When--is EPA going to make a ruling on
this sometime fairly soon, or----
Secretary Vilsack. I think that they are waiting on a
completion of the Department of Energy testing. The last time I
checked, there was still some testing to be done on some of the
older vehicles. I would anticipate and hope that we would see
this relatively soon. I think we got positive news, from a
ethanol and biofuel industry standpoint, with the RFS2,
reflecting that virtually--the corn-based ethanol and biodiesel
would be able to qualify under the new RFS2.
So, we're moving aggressively forward. We're looking at
ways in which we can use both Recovery money and our regular
program money to encourage this distribution system for
biorefineries. We're trying to accelerate the energy title of
the farm bill provisions so we can make the resources available
to really jumpstart this industry. We see this as a critical
component, as I said earlier, a critical pillar to a new
revitalized rural economy. And we absolutely need this,
Senator. We need this and a lot more. And we need, I believe, a
regional approach, in terms of how we invest these resources so
we get the biggest bang for the buck.
Senator Brownback. Well, I'd sure urge you to put your
shoulder in on this--on the EPA, on that percentage, because I
don't know anything that could quicker move us up than a move
like that would. And your voice, and your strength on this, and
your speaking for rural America, could be a key piece of that,
if you can.
METHANE RESEARCH
Also, we are having difficulties--some people are looking
at methane within livestock operations. It--I think it would be
a worthwhile thing for the Department to invest in methane-to-
electricity research--collection-gathering type of systems.
They have them in dairies--in confined dairies. They aren't,
off of large cattle operations, because of the collection and
the dirt that's involved in it, instead of a confined facility.
We need help in that field. If--in your electricity--or,
excuse me, when you're looking at the biofuels sector, if you
can see--that piece of it would be very helpful, as well.
Secretary Vilsack. I'd say a couple things in response to
that comment, Senator. First, one of the reasons we wanted to
focus our competitive research dollars was to be able to
advance areas that had great significance so that our National
Institute of Food and Agriculture would become the equivalent
of the National Institutes of Health, in terms of its ability
to leverage additional resources. One of the areas we think we
should be leveraging more dollars competitively is in this
energy area.
Second, we entered into a memorandum of understanding with
the dairy industry. The dairy industry and the retail community
have combined together to commit to reducing their carbon
footprint by a significant amount, and one strategy for doing
that is expanded use of digesters. And so, we are in the
process of working with the dairy industry to figure out how we
can use our grant programs more effectively to allow dairy
operations to utilize this digester capacity. The problem there
is that the smaller dairies are often not included because it's
cost prohibitive. So, how can we help those smaller dairies?
And then, finally, I have been and I have seen farms--hog
operations, in particular--where there has been a rather
phenomenal thing taking place, in terms of large hog operations
essentially converting the methane produced in their pit to
electricity, and doing it with solar-powered technology. It's
happening in North Carolina, and it's happening in a number of
other parts of the country.
Senator Brownback. We need some help with that in the large
feed-yard cattle operations. It's just a different setting,
it's not a----
Secretary Vilsack. Right.
Senator Brownback [continuing]. Confined unit. And yet, as
you might guess, the methane production is fairly substantial
with it. So, you'd--it's something to watch.
AGRICULTURE EXPO
Just a final thought would be--I'm a big person that, if
you show people or if you provide an opportunity for people to
see something, they really--their imagination catches on and
things start to happen. I've pushed, for some time, that we
would a new products expo where you would--the USDA--maybe
USDA, with Department of Energy, or with NREL--would host a
``bring your latest gismo out of what you're doing with
agriculture renewable products.'' Maybe it's like a Detroit
auto show, where you--the latest and greatest comes out, and
maybe you want to host it in a great Midwestern city of--like,
Kansas City, maybe, or something like that. I don't know what--
the Kansas side of Kansas City--but, you know, in that area
anyway. But, I think you would really get a lot of interest.
And I think you'd--there'd be a lot of people looking at it.
Just as these things--they start to tend to tell people a
different narrative of what future that can be different. And I
think it also helps attract human capital into our industry,
which is at the root of what we need to do. We need to attract
more people into the industry. And to do that, you've got to
sell some excitement with it. And I think these things can be
very exciting. So, I hope you'd consider doing that.
Secretary Vilsack. Positive suggestion. I won't commit to
the Kansas part of it, because I've got a Wisconsin chair, I've
got a Missouri friend, Mississippi probably could make a case
for it, and I know--Senator Harkin's not here, and I'm sure
he'd be--his interest would be piqued in having it in Des
Moines. Mine would be, too, frankly.
Senator Brownback. Thanks, Secretary.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Brownback.
Senator Bond.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary. I agree with my friend from
Kansas. You ought to go to an ag show. It just so happens that
the Danforth Plant Science Center, the NIDUS Center, which is
coming up with all of these wonderful ag developments, has
their annual ag show--it's an international ag show--the last
week in May. And I hope that you will be there, because they
are doing tremendous things, particularly in biofuels. And I
would be--be happy to provide you information, if some of your
staff wants to attend. And my colleagues are welcome to come,
too.
I would agree strongly with what the Senator from Kansas
said about ag development. We found--as a result of requests
from the president of Afghanistan, and our commanding general
at the time, now Ambassador Eikenberry--that providing
agricultural tools can totally switch around the area. The
State Department was unable to send ag development specialists,
but the Missouri National Guard went with ag specialists,
working with a land grant college--in 1 year they brought
reasonably modern ag practices that were much more productive
and lucrative than poppy farming--and poppy production in
Nangarhar, in 1 year, went from the second highest in the
Nation to almost zero. And there are now at least 10 other
States, backed up by land grant colleges--they can provide a
very valuable resource in what--Secretary Clinton and I
strongly believe smart power is the only way to establish
stability in many of these countries. So, that is an area where
the USDA can help.
I commend you and thank you for the significant increase to
$425 million for competitive grants through ag and food
research. I think NIFA has--is developing wonderful things for
improving nutrition, making much greater availability of food
for a growing population, lessening the use of chemical
pesticides, and improving agricultural energy.
But, one of the problems we see in the developing area is
biotech. Many of the experts in the area say, ``This is a
tremendous industry, but it's being strangled by regulation.''
And right now, we've seen roundup-ready alfalfa--been 3 years
since the court order. They go back for an EIS. It's likely
going to be 4 years before they get a final EIS. So, this has
been tested, tested, and retested. And in order for farmers and
consumers to realize the benefits of agrobiotechnology, it's
essential the USDA continue to implement a timely--a science-
based, but timely approval process.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on that; and if there are
things that we can do legislatively to help you clear away the
underbrush so we can bring these new products to market, I
would be very happy to join with my colleagues to provide you
all the help you need.
AFGHANISTAN AGRICULTURE
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, first of all just a brief
comment about Afghanistan. I went to Afghanistan in January to
visit with 64 USDA workers who were over there working with
National Guard troops, as you mentioned, and with the Afghan
farmers. And I agree with you----
Senator Bond. Oh, it's----
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. There is----
Senator Bond [continuing]. Huge.
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. A tremendous opportunity.
The Afghan Agriculture Minister is a person, I think, of good
integrity. He's got a framework in place focused on increasing
agriculture productivity, regenerating agribusiness in
Afghanistan, making sure the natural resources are protected,
and change management to his own operation. There's a lot of
work yet to be done there, but I think you're going to continue
to see----
Senator Bond. Okay.
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. A USDA presence there.
BIOTECHNOLOGY
As it relates to biotechnology, let me, first of all, say
that, when I came into office, I was confronted with an
inspector general's report suggesting that the Department did
not have a strategy for promoting biotechnology, not only
within the United States, but around the world.
Senator Bond. Right.
Secretary Vilsack. We have spent the last 7 or 8 months
focusing on developing such a strategy, that includes continued
promotion of a science-based and rules-based system; using
public diplomacy, pointing out the benefits of biotechnology,
in terms of its capacity to increase productivity, less
reliance on natural resources, and on chemicals and protection
of the environment. So, we're in the process now of
implementing that strategy.
We are also focused on our own rulemaking process, which we
began a number of years ago, in this effort. We got quite a bit
of comments from people from all parts of the spectrum.
NUTRITION GUIDELINES
Senator Bond. Mr. Secretary, I--time's running out. I just
want to add one final thought. I support the First Lady's Let's
Move campaign, but as one who shops in a rural grocery store
and sees people going through with food stamps for the SNAP
program, with obese children and parents, and baskets full of
empty-calorie food, have you thought about implementing the
same kind of guidelines you have for WIC, school lunch, to SNAP
to say that you have to use it to buy milk, fruits, vegetables?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, we have looked at this. The
complexity is in the fact that there are now, on average,
50,000 different items in a grocery store. And using the
technology to be able to adjust the EBT card makes it difficult
to do what you've asked to be done.
What we are looking at is creating a set of incentives. We
have a program now in which we are encouraging States to look
at point-of-sale incentives, where, instead of a dollar being
credited to your EBT card for vegetables and fruit purchases,
the grocer would get the dollar, but you, the person with the
card, would only be charged 80 cents. So, that would extend
their card a bit, as a way of encouraging and incenting fruits
and vegetable purchases. We're going to see. We've got about
$20 million of incentive grants for pilots, to see how this is
going to work, if it's going to work. And that's how we're
approaching it right now.
I will say our principal focus this year on fruits and
vegetables is trying to make sure that we get more of them in
our school lunch and school breakfast programs.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and apologize for running over.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Bond.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I
appreciate your leadership of this subcommittee.
And, Mr. Secretary, welcome. We appreciate your dedicated
service as Secretary of Agriculture. I know you have a couple
of hot-button issues in our State, we've always got one or two.
Don't want you to get bored in your job.
FARMERS LAWSUITS
One of these is the implementation of judgment in the
minority farmers lawsuit, which had been pending for some
years. There is now a directive that funds be paid to those who
were shown to have been discriminated against in the
administration of Department of Agriculture programs over a
period of years. I wonder if you could just give us a status
report on what the administration is doing to settle these
claims, and what the outlook is. What's the request, if any,
for specific settlement payments in this bill?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, thank you for asking that
question. When I came into office, on a bipartisan basis, the
former Agriculture Secretaries that I talked to encouraged me
to focus time and attention and resources on trying to get
these cases settled. As you know, there are cases involving
Black farmers, women farmers, Hispanic farmers, and Native
American farmers. They are all different, in terms of where
they are in the court process.
The Pigford case, which is the Black farmer case, was
probably the most mature case. We had a class-action
certification. We had had a settlement of the case. Late filers
came in. Congress essentially, in the farm bill, reopened this
matter, but did not put sufficient resources to actually get it
settled. I encouraged the President and the administration to
fix a dollar amount that would actually be real, which they
did. The President submitted in his budget last year, and has
submitted in a recent supplemental request, $1.25 billion that
would be distributed in somewhat the same way that the first
tranche of resources were distributed.
You'd have two tracks, a speedy track, which would require
less proof of claim, but a lower dollar amount that you would
be entitled to, with debt relief; and a more complicated track,
that would allow you to get up to $250,000. That process
requires Congress to appropriate the resource. We've made the
request, and we're going to continue to work with Congress to
make sure that that is followed through, and hopefully done by
the end of this month.
The other cases, we have encouraged the Department of
Justice, and it has responded, to begin the process of
discussing negotiations. In the Keepseagle case, which is the
Native American case, there are numbers being discussed.
There's a fairly wide gap between the parties at this point,
but we're continuing to have conversations to narrow that gap.
In the other two cases, the Love and Garcia case, we're in the
process now. They are complicated because they're not yet
certified as class action, so, in a sense, they're individual
cases, tens of thousands of individual cases.
Candidly, to get these cases settled, in my view, one of
two things has to happen. Either there has to be an
understanding and agreement on a dollar amount that lawyers
representing an adequate number of plaintiffs will agree with
the Department of Justice on, or Congress has to essentially
direct a process for USDA to go through for a rapid evaluation
of the claims so that we'd get a sense of what the potential
liability could be in those other three cases. We are very
committed to trying to get these cases settled and closing this
rather sordid chapter of USDA history.
Senator Cochran. Well, we appreciate your insights and
sharing with us the status of these programs, and your efforts
to help resolve this in a fair way, and one that's consistent
with the judgments of the courts that have rendered decisions
on that subject.
FOREIGN CATFISH
In our State, we have been advised, by some of our
aquaculture catfish farmer constituents, that the Department
hasn't been doing much to support them in their effort to get
inspection of foreign fish that are imported into the country,
some of it labeled as if it's catfish from Mississippi--it
doesn't say ``Mississippi,'' but it borrows the name--and in
other ways is making it difficult to compete, because they're
not going through the inspection processes and other safeguards
that are required of our domestic producers. And so, we've got
a problem there. And folks are not only angry about it, but
they're going out of business.
I drove through the delta the other day and noticed some
bulldozers just pushing down the impoundments, and I found out
that that person, the landowner involved, is going to try to
make money growing soybeans again. And maybe that's, you know,
a good decision, based on the fact that we do have this
difficult competitive situation.
What is the status of implementation of the inspection
programs for foreign fish coming in? And do you have any
encouragement that I can pass on to my fish farmers down in
Mississippi?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, again, thanks for asking that
question. One of the things that I've tried to do as Secretary
is occasionally walk down the various long hallways at the USDA
building and pop into someone's office and just sit down and
find out what they're up to. Not long ago, I happened into the
office of the fellows who are working on the catfish
regulations, and over the next 45 minutes, I found out how
complicated this issue is.
First, we had to determine the intent of Congress, from the
legislation that was passed, as to whether or not Congress
intended a narrow definition or an expansive definition. There
are 39 different varieties of catfish, I found out from my
brief visit with those fellows. And they are, as you indicated,
raised in a number of parts of the world in different
conditions and circumstances.
Following that conversation, we did put together a rule,
and we submitted that to OMB. And at the current time, that is
where the process is. OMB is in the process of reviewing that
rule. So, we have made our determination as to what we think is
appropriate, but, in light of the process that we have to
follow, folks have to sign off on that. We're encouraging OMB
to do that as quickly as possible.
We recognize this is a complicated circumstance, because
you've got safety issues, you've got consumer information
issues, you've got the economic development capacities of folks
who are raising these fish in America. You also, obviously,
have relationships with other countries that get complicated,
based on decisions that we make here.
Let me just simply say, from USDA's perspective, we are
concerned about safety, and ought to be; that's our number one
concern. We are also concerned about making sure the consumers
have the right information to make the right and more informed
choices as they go shopping, that they are getting what they
are paying for and what they think they are getting. We are
also interested in making sure that what we do is consistent
with the science-based systems that we are advocating in
trading relationships throughout the world. So, those are the
three criteria that we used in developing our rule.
Senator Cochran. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
Senator Brownback, I want to start by thanking you both for
your leadership of this subcommittee.
IRRIGATION FUNDING
Mr. Secretary, recently I met with a group of potato
growers from Maine who expressed to me their difficulty in
securing funds for important irrigation projects in my State.
It's my understanding that there are two USDA potential
sources for irrigation projects. One is the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). And the second is the
Agricultural Management Assistance Program. Unfortunately, our
potato farmers have had difficulty in securing funding from any
of these programs on an ongoing basis. And let me explain why
it's important.
In 2007, the need for irrigation funding was greatly
increased when the State of Maine established low-flow rules
for streams and rivers. These rules were the result of a
collaborative process between agricultural stakeholders and
environmental groups, and they developed significant new
environmental standards for minimum flow levels. Everyone
worked together in a collaborative process, and it was
understood, at the time, that NRCS would provide the resources
to assist in implementing these rules. They're particularly a
problem in the months of July and August, when irrigation is
most needed for the crop. Thus, the potato industry is in
desperate need of funds to establish irrigation ponds and
purchase efficient irrigation equipment.
Now, there are local meetings that are held to decide how
to allocate part of the NRCS funds, but those meetings are
inevitably scheduled, it seems, during either planting or
harvesting times. And thus, the farmers are unable to leave
their farms to participate.
So, my first request would be for you to encourage those in
charge of the program in our region to schedule those
allocation meetings at a time when the farmers can attend.
The second issue is, the director of the program has
discretion with some of the funding, and yet is putting it to
other uses. This is an ongoing problem. When the Maine Potato
Board came to see me recently, it was their number one issue.
And I worked with the chairman last year on a colloquy urging
the Department to help us. Unfortunately, nothing really has
changed.
So, I want to ask you, personally, to help us resolve this
irrigation problem that has been created by my farmers, working
in a very collaborative way with environmental groups, to come
up with minimum flow standards. But, it has created a need for
more irrigation.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, first of all, I've just
instructed the staff to make sure that the meetings are
scheduled at a more convenient time for the farmers. That is an
absolutely fair request, and I'm not quite sure why that hasn't
been done, but we will certainly try to rectify that
immediately.
I have been advised that $750,000 of EQIP money was made
available, and resources under the Agricultural Management
Assistance Program of about $258,000 was made available. The
total AMA allocation for Maine was made exclusively available
for potato growers in one county. I may get this wrong, is it
``Arrows''----
Senator Collins. It's Aroostook.
Secretary Vilsack. Aroostook.
Senator Collins. Where I'm from.
Secretary Vilsack. Okay, well, that's where all that money
went.
Senator Collins. Good.
Secretary Vilsack. The rest of the resources, the $750,000
of EQIP money, was available statewide for irrigation
management. And as a result of the meetings that have taken
place, NRCS in Maine has established an initiative in which it
intends to fund, each year for the years 2010, 2011, and 2012,
an additional $750,000 per year available statewide.
We will make sure that those resources are, obviously,
strategically focused and make sure that people have input as
to where they are to be spent.
Senator Collins. Thank you. It is an important issue. We
did receive some funding, but this year the State--the
conservationist, the head of NRCS, has allocated the AMA
irrigation funds for other purposes. So, we look forward to
working with you.
Mr. Chairman, I know my time is expired. I would ask that I
be permitted to submit, for the record, a question on our dairy
industry, which is still facing tough times. But, I want to
thank the Department for the work that you've been doing to try
to provide some assistance.
And also, an issue that Senator Snowe and I have written to
you about--new regulations being promulgated by the Food Safety
and Inspection Service that have a big impact on a chicken
producer in Maine. We're just asking that the full rulemaking
process be followed so that we can have the opportunity for
input.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, can I just make----
Senator Kohl. Go ahead.
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. Two quick comments to
Senator Collins?
We have met with the Maine business that has concerns about
the ready-to-eat, not-ready-to-eat products. And we had a good
meeting with them.
And second, we do have a dairy council that we have
established to take a look at long-term strategies for
moderating the severe ups and downs of the dairy industry so
there can be greater predictability. That group will meet by
conference call in March, and they'll have their first in-
person meeting in Washington, DC, in April. Our hope is that
they can report to us by the end of this year with
recommendations.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary for your hard work.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Collins.
Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, again, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your great
leadership, and that of your Deputy Secretary. It is good to
see our Budget Officer here again, as it is every year for a
long time, Mr. Steele.
First of all, let me just, again, congratulate you and
thank you for the tremendous emphasis that you have put on
child nutrition. That is long overdue, and I can sense a
refocusing of the Department's efforts in this area under your
leadership. That extra billion dollars a year for 10 years is
truly, as you said in your statement, an historic proposed
investment, improving the quality of the food that kids get in
schools, improving their nutritional level, and getting more
kids included, of course, in the programs.
We had a good meeting with the First Lady, and I know we're
all going to be working together--this subcommittee, and other
committees I'm on, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee, and the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Committee--to make this a coordinated effort. So, I thank you
for having that in the budget.
In the WIC program, the increase in the fruit and vegetable
vouchers--again, that is something long overdue. So, I'm glad
you're addressing that also.
On food safety, as you know, the--we have a food safety
bill, that the House has passed--we have it about ready to go.
I'm sure you've looked at it, at least what the House has done.
We'll be tracking closely with the House; there'll be a few
differences that we'll have to work out. I'm hopeful that we'll
have that food safety bill on the Senate floor soon. If not
this work period, it definitely will be at the top of the list
as soon as we come back after Easter. And so, I hope to have
that done and to the President's desk perhaps by late May,
something like that.
That bill is FDA, and USDA's Food Safety and Inspection
Service is equally critical--focusing not just on diseases, but
also better food safety pathogen controls. You've addressed
that also in your statement, and I appreciate that.
Regarding the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative,
again, I've sensed, in the last few years, a growing interest
in this effort, in Iowa and in other States. In fact--more and
more often, young people are getting involved in agriculture,
not with 10,000 acres but smaller enterprises, where they're
growing for local markets, fruits, and vegetables, livestock or
poultry, that kind of thing, and are filling niche markets. It
may not be a full-time occupation, but it's something that
they're doing with their families. And they may have other
sources of income. I sense this as a very big--a growing
movement all over the country. So, to the extent that you have
focused on that, and are focusing on local processing, local
meatpacking, local projects that can build off of that, it
generates income, it's good for the rural economy, and people
will tend to stay in those local communities. So, again, I
commend you for your focus on local food initiatives and urge
you to continue to really push that Know Your Farmer, Know Your
Food effort.
CONSERVATION FUNDING
Okay, those are all the good things. Now let me get to a
couple of other things that I'm not quite so happy with, Mr.
Secretary. And I say that all in good friendship and
admiration. One has to do with conservation.
We worked very hard, on the 2008 farm bill, Mr. Chairman,
to strike balances. It was a long process, but we had
overwhelming support for the bill here and in the House. In
fact, it took overriding two Presidential vetoes to get it
done, but we did so with overwhelming vote. You, yourself, Mr.
Secretary, have pointed out a number of conservation efforts--
the Mississippi River Basin initiative, the Coral Reef
Conservation initiative are examples that show--and I know,
personally--I know your commitment to conservation that you had
as Governor of the State of Iowa. But, I'm disappointed in the
budget, on conservation.
Last fall, in just 56 days, USDA received 21,300
applications for the Conservation Stewardship Program, covering
an estimated 33 million acres. But, we could only enroll 12.8
million acres for 2009 under the farm bill--so, the demand is
there. The demand is there, but we couldn't meet it all. In the
EQIP program, at the end of 2009, USDA had on hand, but didn't
have the funding for, 54,329 applications. So, again, the
demand is there. And as we keep reading in the paper, whether
we pick it up and read about the Chesapeake Bay and what's
happening there, or we look at the water quality in Iowa and
other States, we just can't back off of all the great strides
we've started to make in conservation.
Farmers want to carry, but, you know, when a farmer is
faced with a cost-price squeeze--well, that additional few
acres of land that maybe was being devoted to conservation--
well, maybe a farmer is pressured to plant that land to corn or
beans or wheat, or something like that, or to cut back other
conservation efforts to make ends meet. So, the pressure's
become great on farmers. They want to be conservationists. You
know that as well as I do. They just need some help. They're
willing to put in their own labor, they're willing to put their
own money into it, but they need some help from the Federal
Government.
And the estimate I have is that the budget cuts will
eliminate conservation that would be carried out on about 4
million acres of land.
So, please talk to me about that, Mr. Secretary. I know
there are budget problems, but it just seems to me that this is
one area where we can't back off--I'm concerned deeply about
it.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Senator, first of all, let me
acknowledge the fact that you have been a champion of
conservation for as long as you've been in this body, and have
certainly led the effort in the 2008 farm bill, and in previous
efforts to try to get people's attention focused on
conservation as if it were, in a sense, a commodity.
Senator Harkin. Commodity.
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. As significant.
You know, I haven't been in Washington very long, so I
don't quite understand the way Washington thinks, at times.
Last year, we basically funded enough resources to enroll
roughly 277 million acres--almost 277.5 million acres--in our
conservation programs totally. The budget we submitted this
year will cover almost 305 million acres, an increase of over
27 million acres. So, I think we are continuing to try to look
for ways in which we can enhance conservation.
Now, I can understand there's a difference between
authorized levels and appropriated levels, but we believe that
this budget actually appropriates more money to conservation
than the previous year. So, more money and more acres.
One of the challenges that we have is to manage these
programs properly. And NRCS has been under a cloud of an audit
for the last couple of years, because it didn't do all it
needed to do, in previous years, in making sure that people
were applying properly and that people were getting resources
for the right type of conservation. So, we want to make sure
that, as we increase and ramp up some of these programs, that
we do it in a way that we manage the resources effectively and
that we don't continue to be under this cloud of an audit. It
will take a couple of years for us to fix this problem,
because, frankly, we tried to do too much too soon, and didn't
have enough people. So, we're in the process of trying to make
sure we do this properly so that we can respond to taxpayers
that we're spending their money wisely.
So, I think our budget is a constructive one. And I think
it is furthering the interests of conservation. It may not be
as much as folks would like to spend, but, given the fiscal
realities, we thought we did a pretty good job of balancing.
Senator Harkin. Well, I understand what you said. But, in
the farm bill we put that money in there, including funds for
technical assistance and personnel to carry it out, and we paid
for it. It was fully offset. And that's why, I think, we got so
many votes for the farm bill. We fully offset it. It was fully
paid for. So, again, yes, you're increasing, but you're
``here'' and the farm bill is ``here,'' so there's a--there is
a gap there, a reduction from what we enacted. Now, if you're
saying that you want to make sure that you have the people in
place and everything to make sure that the programs work, well
I can understand that, too, I guess. But, I'm just worried
about whether or not we're going to be able to get these people
signed up in the numbers that we had laid out and fully paid
for in the farm bill. You think we'll be okay on that this
year, that we'll have--be able to sign up the 12.8 million
acres again this year--in the CSP, for example?
Secretary Vilsack. I think we'll probably, candidly, be
closer to 12 million, but we'll probably see a significant
increase in EQIP. So, it kind of depends on which program folks
sign up for.
I will say, Senator, our goal is not to undercut the
conservation efforts. I think the worst thing that could happen
would be for folks to learn that people who weren't entitled to
money for conservation were getting money. And we want to make
sure that we do this right. And if you read the audit of NRCS,
as I have, you realize that there were some serious issues that
had to be addressed, and are being addressed, and they were
fairly comprehensive.
So, I don't want to, with resources, not properly manage
those resources. I think I have a responsibility to do that.
Senator Harkin. Right.
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. So, we are trying to ramp
this up in a way that is manageable.
Senator Harkin. Thank you.
BIOREFINERY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Next is on the whole area of the Biorefinery Assistance
Program, section 9003 of the farm bill. Again, there is a lot
of strong support for that. I know you've been a supporter of
biofuels. But, the budget is $245 million in 2010, $150 million
was authorized for 2011, but your budget only calls for $17
million. Why such a low budget figure for the Biorefinery
Assistance Program?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, we have a significant amount of
carryover to take from the previous year. There has not been
as--well, let me back up.
In order for this to work, I think there had to be a
strategy, there had to be a holistic and comprehensive approach
to how you build this industry. When credit became difficult,
when prices collapsed and there was a challenge in the ethanol
industry, because of a very tough year last year, there was
sort of a slowing down of interest in this area.
That's one of the reasons why the President did two things:
He instructed us to put together a strategic plan for the
biofuels industry and to accelerate, as best we could, the
other components of the energy bill that you all put together
in the 2008 farm bill. Because all of them have to, sort of,
work in concert. You have to have the resources available to
farmers to incent them to produce the feedstocks. You have to
have resources available to biorefineries that can be
retrofitted to become more efficient. You have to have a
broader expanse of opportunity, not just in one region of the
country, but all across the country. You have to have
coordinated research that increases the efficiency of what
we're currently doing and develops new feedstocks so we can
meet the 36 billion gallon threshold.
And so, as a result of all of that, we are trying to
coordinate all of these resources. So, with the carryover and
coordinated resources, we think we're going to have a much
stronger and more viable biofuels industry, and we are already
seeing signs of interest picking up. The uncertainty about the
RFS2 also had issues, which we've now cleared up. And Senator
Brownback and I had a conversation, before you came, about E15
and the important role that could play in stimulating
additional growth. So, there were a lot of moving pieces in
2009, some of those pieces have come into place. I think you're
going to see more aggressive effort this year. And I think
you'll see us do a better job, in terms of resources, in the
future. But, at the present time, we think the carryover plus
that amount is enough to, probably, meet the demand, and
especially using some of the loan guarantee assistance.
ETHANOL
Senator Harkin. Did you--did you state earlier anything
about the timeframe on when we're going to see the RFS2 come
out?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, it's----
Senator Harkin. It's not your Department, but----
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. It's come out, in the sense
that the EPA has indicated that corn-based ethanol is alive and
well, meeting the threshold of 20 percent; soy diesel,
biodiesel alive and well, meeting the threshold. So, that was a
positive indication and sign.
Senator Harkin. But the--upping the percentage of ethanol
that can be blended----
Secretary Vilsack. The blend rate is----
Senator Harkin [continuing]. Blend rate----
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. Still--as I explained to
Senator Brownback, Senator, the Department of Energy is
currently doing testing on older vehicles to determine the
impact of E15 on those older vehicles. They're fairly confident
that the newer vehicles can take E15, but they want to make
sure they know what the cutoff point is. And as they are
figuring that out, we, obviously, are figuring out ways in
which we can provide assistance and help through rural
development for the kind of blender pumps that I think
ultimately we'll have to have. Because I think somebody will
drive into a gas station and want E15, somebody will want E85,
and somebody will want E10, and you have to be able to have the
pumps to be able to meet that. And so, that's part of our
effort to try to build this industry, is to create rural
development resources to make that happen.
Senator Harkin. Very good.
Secretary Vilsack. And I should say we're using rural
development resources from the Recovery Act to essentially
promote those kinds of gas stations that have capacity to do
E85. And once we get a read from EPA on whether it's E10 or
whatever it is, then we can move forward on the appropriate
distribution systems.
Senator Harkin. Very good.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have a couple questions, one
dealing with crop insurance. I'll just--I'll submit it in
writing.
Senator Kohl. Sure.
Senator Harkin. I'm a little concerned about----
Senator Kohl. Yeah.
Senator Harkin [continuing]. Some of the cuts in the
underwriting and in the administrative and operating--A&O, as
they call it, expenses for crop insurance. I'm just--I'm
concerned about that, but I won't take any time here. I'll just
submit it in writing.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, if I can just clarify--staff's
just given me--so that you know--in terms of the biorefinery,
we believe we have loan guarantee authority up to $900 million.
So, there's discretionary money, and there's mandatory money.
What you referred to, I think, was the discretionary money that
we're adding on--in addition to the mandatory resources. So, in
biorefinery--we have $900 million of guarantees, which is a
fairly significant amount, I think. And I would like the
opportunity to comment about the crop insurance----
Senator Harkin. Well----
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. If I could----
Senator Harkin [continuing]. Go right ahead.
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. If that's----
Senator Harkin [continuing]. I just didn't want to take----
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. All right----
Senator Harkin [continuing]. Any more time. But----
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. I----
Senator Harkin [continuing]. If you have something you want
to add.
Secretary Vilsack. I mean this is a very important issue.
Senator Harkin. Yes.
CROP INSURANCE
Secretary Vilsack. And it's one that I think folks have to
understand.
When crop insurance was first devised, it was not a product
that people were aware of. It was a new product. And so, there
had to be a way in which it could be incented so that people
would think about it and purchase it. It wasn't the thing that
was mandated, it wasn't a--it was a choice.
And so, there were efforts to try to encourage agents and
companies to get into this business. Over the course of time--
--
Scott, do you have that chart?
Mr. Steele. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack. Over the course of time the profits for
both the agents and the companies have grown rather
significantly. And, in fact, in the last couple of years--and
this is the chart. You, obviously, can't see it very well, but
this is the chart. This is where it started, and this is where
it is today. And you've seen a dramatic increase in profits in
the last couple of years, in part because agents are paid based
on the value of the policy, as opposed to the number of
policies they sell. And the companies have done a pretty good
job; they've gotten about a 16 percent return on their money.
So, what we're proposing is a change that would adjust the
A&O so that agents would be paid for the number of policies
they sell. I mean, the reality is that most bankers today
require crop insurance as a condition of loans. So, it's not
all that difficult to sell this product.
And on the profit side, we think a 12 percent return is a
fair return, and so there's a slight adjustment. Now, why do we
say that? Because we had a study done, by an independent
research group, that suggested that 12 percent would be a
pretty good return. I would take 12 percent on my money.
And then, second, the GAO was very critical of this
program, so we tried to respond to the concerns of GAO, to the
independent study, to the fact that, today, there are 200,000
fewer policies being written than there were in 2000. So, the
profits have doubled in the last couple of years, for 200,000
fewer policies. So, we think, you know, there has to be some
adjustment; there has to be a fair balance between the need for
this product, which is a very important risk-management tool,
and the need for farmers to have it, and also the taxpayers to
be treated fairly.
And finally, some of the resource is going to be used to
expand access to the product in some parts of the country where
it has been very difficult to get crop insurance at all. So,
it's an effort to try to spread the opportunity and the risk
management tool in other parts of the country.
Senator Harkin. Well, I appreciate your explanation. I may
want to just get some more elaboration on that. But, you make a
strong argument. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Vilsack. Thank you.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Harkin.
NATIONAL ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM
Mr. Secretary, after the discovery of mad cow disease in
North America nearly a decade ago, there was great interest in
developing a system to trace diseased animals that move in
commerce. This was considered vital to protect the livestock
sector against catastrophic market collapse in the event of a
serious disease outbreak. Since then, there have been
substantial Federal investments to develop a National Animal
Identification System, as you know.
However, on February 5th of this year, USDA announced an
abrupt about-face, in the nature of goals of this system. This
revised system will be national, only to the degree that
animals pass into interstate commerce, leaving much of the
responsibility to States and Native American tribes. Rather
than taking the lead, USDA will be a collaborator, assisting
States and tribes to create diverse localized responses.
So, Mr. Secretary, what assurance can you provide that, in
the face of the next widespread animal disease discovery, this
system will increase consumer confidence, mitigate economic
impacts of the outbreak, and maintain market access of U.S.
products--U.S. producers in global markets? What is your
timetable for development and implementation of this new
system? How will costs be borne among the Federal Government,
States, and tribes? How do you plan to assist these States and
tribes that are not able to assume the additional costs of
development and implementation of a diverse State-centric
system? And, as you know, the dairy sector has developed a
fairly sophisticated identification and animal tracking system
already. How will your proposal affect dairy farmers or alter
the system they already have in place, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, we had a series of
listening sessions throughout the country, on animal
identification. There were 15 in all, I attended 2 of the 15,
and read comments from the other 13. A wide range of concerns
about the former system, starting with confidentiality and
privacy and how the Federal Government was going to dictate the
technology, the cost, and the fact that there were differences
between various types of livestock. Greater acceptance of this
program among sheep, among hogs, goats, and the poultry
industry; great resistance from the beef industry, to the point
that less than 35 percent of operators were, essentially,
participating, if you will, in this system. So, we really
didn't have the kind of cooperation and participation that we
thought we would have.
Congress, and many Members of Congress, began to express
concerns about the resources that were being allocated to this
program, and were suggesting that--Chairman Peterson, I think,
suggested the time had come to basically pull the plug on this.
So, a lack of confidence in Congress, and a lack of confidence
on behalf of the cattle industry in particular, led us to
think, ``Is there a way in which we could get greater
participation?''
We're still taking advantage of the things we learned from
the resources that we've spent, and not disrupting what perhaps
the poultry industry or the hog industry had developed, and not
disrupting what we had learned from other disease management
strategies.
We felt that the one way to do this would be to have a
partnership between the Federal Government and State
governments to focus on where the real issue is, which is
cattle and livestock that pass in interstate commerce, and work
with the States to develop a strategy that would focus on low-
cost technology that would get the job done, have a higher rate
of participation, and therefore, allow us to do a better job of
traceability, which is really what this is all about, and
encourage a more rapid response if there is, in fact, an
outbreak.
So, we are in the process of meeting with State ag
commissioners and secretaries this month. We start this process
with our team meeting with those folks, and we will begin to
develop sort of a standard for how this could work.
Recognizing that, once the standard's put in place, it
would probably likely focus on lower-cost technology; it would
address the concerns that were expressed by those who were just
local producers and local consumers, that they didn't know why
they had to participate in a program, when all they were going
to do was slaughter it for their own use or for their
neighbors' use; deal with the issue of confidentiality by
ensuring that Federal Government wasn't going to be having this
massive database of information about people that would be used
for purposes other than traceability; and work with folks, in
terms of the more difficult issues of liability; providing
Federal resources to help purchase the low-cost technology; and
see whether or not we could get significantly greater
participation.
There may very well be decisions made by these
commissioners that what's working in poultry and what's working
in pork may continue, and we would be supportive of that. They
may decide that they want ear tags, they may decide that
there's some other technology that makes sense for them in
their State; we'll help pay for that.
What we think will happen at the end of this is that
there'll be greater cooperation between State and Federal
Government; there'll be greater participation on behalf of
those in all sectors; and we'll have a better job of promoting
traceability, and, at the end of the day, will probably reduce
the cost overall to the Federal Government.
If we continued down the road we were on, we'd continue to
have participation in some, but not all, of livestock, and we
would continue to be confronted with the notion that when only
30 to 35 percent of people participate, it means 60 to 65
percent of the folks aren't participating, and that means that
you really don't have a traceability system, and you don't have
the capacity to really do what you need to do to preserve the
market. So, we wanted to try something different.
Senator Kohl. How will this affect the dairy sector?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think it depends on the
individual State. I mean, the reality is that if animals are
crossing State lines, there's going to have to be a system to
make sure that we can track them back to the State of
Wisconsin. For example, if they go from Wisconsin to Iowa, then
we'll have a system that will allow us to track them back to
Wisconsin. Then, within Wisconsin, you can decide how far back
you want to go from that point. You may want to go back to the
case with Wisconsin, where there's been great cooperation and
participation in the system, you may want to continue that. You
can do that.
But, the State's going to be the one that's going to make
that decision, the producers within that State will have a
greater say in it, and the technology will be something that
producers will be satisfied that it's reasonable and that
they're not being dictated to.
NEW INITIATIVES
Senator Kohl. All right. Mr. Secretary, the budget proposed
a number of initiatives, including the Healthy Food Financing
Initiative, and enhancements for organic and sustainable
agriculture production. Could you please walk us through these
initiatives? For example, how much of this involves a real
increase in spending and how much is simply a redirection of
funds from existing programs?
Mr. Secretary, I'd like your thoughts on this. I'd also
like to hear from Deputy Merrigan, if she has any additional
comments.
HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, I'll give you a general
overview and then ask the Deputy to provide more specifics.
As we began the process of taking a look at how to better
link local production and local consumption, one of the things
we found out was that there were many communities, both rural
and in inner-city America, that did not have access to a
grocery store that would allow them to have access to fruits
and vegetables and healthy food choices. There was a plethora
of convenience stores located in these areas that provided an
opportunity for processed food and more expensive food, but not
a grocery store.
So, one of the things we wanted to focus on was a way in
which we could respond to that challenge. And so, we began a
process of looking at States and cities that had been
addressing this aggressively such as the State of Pennsylvania
and the city of Philadelphia, as an example. And what we
learned was that, with additional resources and the use of
market tax credits, we could creatively and innovatively
respond to the fact that there were places where people would
go miles and miles and miles without access to a grocery store,
that we could do this in an innovative and creative way, and we
could increase the nutritional opportunities that these folks
have, and also create business opportunities and rural economic
development. A community without a grocery store has a very
difficult time attracting any other kind of opportunity.
What we also found was, when a grocery store located, it
created enough traffic that other business wanted to collocate,
so that you could create some momentum in these communities.
So, working with the Treasury Department, the Health and
Human Services Department, the First Lady's initiative, and
USDA, we put together a $50 million proposal, part of which
would be used to help create that innovative and creative
approach to getting that grocery store located. And it may not
even be a fixed facility, it may be a mobile facility. We just
need to be creative about this.
We also wanted to focus our efforts on a continuation of
farmers markets, community-supported agriculture, and we wanted
to create our rural development resources with enough
flexibility that if somebody wanted to build a small processing
facility or a slaughter facility or a mobile slaughter facility
or a cold storage warehouse so that you could aggregate enough
product to be able to provide a school or hospital with a
steady supply of good quality food, locally produced, we ought
to be able to look at ways in which we could do that.
So, all of this is designed to use new money, but also to
redirect some existing resources in what we think might be a
more effective way.
But, I want the Deputy, who's worked a lot on this and
knows more of the details about it, to amplify, if that's all
right.
Dr. Merrigan. Thank you, sir.
The Secretary did a great job talking about Healthy Food
Financing Initiative, which we're doing in cooperation with
Treasury and HHS. We have a variety of strategies to deal with
the food deserts that were identified by the Economic Research
Service, as mandated by the 2008 farm bill. We're excited about
that.
KNOW YOUR FARMER, KNOW YOUR FOOD
In terms of the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food
Initiative, which Senator Harkin mentioned, great excitement
across the country about that. I was in Kansas City a couple
months ago, there was a lot of action going on there around
local, regional, with your healthcare and your farmers working
in cooperatives. I'm on my way to Madison this month. I was at
Iowa State not that long ago.
But, the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Initiative is not
a program in and of itself. It doesn't have staff, it doesn't
have its own budget. The concept is to use existing USDA
authorities, we've got a lot of resources, we've got a lot of
people, and make sure that we're really following through on
some initiatives in the 2008 farm bill, in particular. For
example, the Business and Industry Loan Guarantee Program,
which Congress had asked that there be 5 percent of that money
set aside for local food promotion, when Secretary Vilsack and
I got into the Department and got down into the details, we
found out that nobody had applied for that money. Our question
naturally was, ``Well, why not?'' Are we doing enough to get
the word out that this money is available? And so, part of Know
Your Farmer, Know Your Food is really trying to better utilize
existing resources within the Department. It's also about
having a national conversation, particularly with young people,
about where we want American agriculture to go. And that's all
been positive.
NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM
In terms of organic, we will be having an inspector general
report coming out, probably this week, that will look at some
longstanding problems in the National Organic Program. These
are problems that we're getting ahead of now, and, for that
reason, we've asked for a $3.1 million increase in the
regulatory program. We believe that this is the age of
enforcement.
We're instituting new initiatives, like residue testing,
unannounced inspections on farms. We really want to increase
the rigor of this program. At the same time, we want to fund
organic initiatives around the Department, really just small
increases in pots that are already there. For example, Market
News, trying to find out more about what's going on in organic
dairy in the marketplace. So, we've just asked for a small
amount of money increase there.
So, there's a variety of footholds in the Department for
organic, but no huge new program. Again, it's getting USDA,
which is a very big-tent organization, finding a way for the
different kinds of production schemes to have a home within our
different agencies.
KNOW YOUR FARMER, KNOW YOUR FOOD
Senator Kohl. Deputy, you talk about Know Your Farmer, Know
Your Food Initiative. We all know it's gaining in popularity
through expanding farmers markets, and other means also. Would
you speak a bit to the economic efficiencies of reduced
transportation costs and the ability for rural communities to
keep more of the wealth it generates in those local
communities. And are there other new challenges in food safety
or other problems, due to this shift in marketing, that we
should be made aware of?
Dr. Merrigan. Well, Secretary Vilsack and I are always on
the road, saying that nobody gets a pass in food safety. Food
safety is not a size-relevant thing. Whether you're a little
guy or the big guy, we all have to do better. But, because one
of the emphases in Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food is to get
more institutional purchasing of locally grown, regionally
grown food, maybe that's our school system, there are new
relationships there, and there are questions about what food
safety certifications need to be put in place; what are the
concerns about liability; how contracts should be written. And
that's one of the reasons that we have a Farm to School team
that's going around the country trying to figure out where Farm
to School has been successful, and where it has failed. There
are 43 States now that have a foothold in Farm to School. Get
the lessons learned and document that so that other
institutions can follow. Get that roadmap in place.
In terms of its potential for rural economic development,
we think it's great. As we know from our NASS Survey data,
there is a real uptick in small farms, those that are grossing
$10,000 and less. We also know that there's that disappearing
middle of family farmers that are just not finding ways to make
ends meet. We think that if we can build stronger local and
regional ag systems, those smaller farmers will graduate into
the middle-sized farms, and those middle-sized farms that are
trying to find a way to survive in a differing, evolving
agricultural climate, that they'll be able to do so.
And so, again, it's a lot of strategies. It may be helping
fund a mobile flash-freezing processing van that will help
small farmers; it might be about helping augment cold storage;
it might be facilitating the development of a farmer
cooperative, so they can aggregate materials, so they can
actually satisfy an institutional buying request. So, again, a
variety of strategies. And again, no food safety concerns that
I'm aware of, at this point.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Deputy Merrigan.
Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just wanted to follow from the opening comments I made, and
then Senator Bond hit it, as well.
GLOBAL AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT
There's a chart you have, Secretary, on agriculture
development as a percentage of total development assistance.
And it's what I was mentioning to you earlier about how this
has fallen off substantially. We had a big investment in
agriculture development, globally, in the 1980s. It was, I
guess, trendy but not sufficient enough to grab on. And then
the--you can see how much it's fallen off, by this chart here--
and then you have it.
This recent uptick, I'm told, is Millennium Challenge
funding--accounts funding, which is good. But, again, I think
it's outside of the wheelhouse. So, you're the one that's got
the expertise in this field; USDA and the land grant system is
the one that knows it. And I just--my hope is that, as Gates
gets into this more, as Millennium Challenge gets into this
more, as AID focuses on this area more, as we look at ways that
we stabilize countries around the world via agriculture
development--like Iraq and Afghanistan, to name two--and as, I
think, there's more of a focus on Africa--that it's USDA and
it's the land grant system that's in there doing this, because
that's where the expertise is.
This is very good investment for foreign affairs, in my
estimation, for the United States. And where I--it seems like
we're kind of in the--betwixt and between on how we're actually
going to do this, who is going to do it. And I would hope that
maybe the funding goes through Millennium Challenge, or the
funding goes through AID, but it ends up working through the
expertise that you have, and the expertise that's at the land
grant universities.
And it would be my hope, as well, that the overall number
would go up, because this is--we're a long ways down the road
of--we give a lot of development assistance, we give a lot of
food aid, in places around the world, but, you know, these are
ones that, over the longer period of time, have been very
successful in many places around the world. We're still hard-
stretched in some places. And there's a concentrated set of
countries, particularly sub-Sahara Africa countries, that the
picture--as I've looked at this over 20 years, it's narrowed
in, a narrower set, when we can--we can deal with a lot of
these problems. And I'm hopeful you can tackle that and deal
with it.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, this is a very important aspect
of our job at USDA. And as part of our strategic vision for the
Department, we realize that we have to do a better job of
providing assistance to deal with food insecurity issues across
the globe.
We have a one-government approach to this. And so, the
State Department, USAID, and USDA have an interagency task
force, if you will, that had been put together to promote
global food security, the Global Hunger and Food Security
Initiative. And it is focused on, first of all increasing
resources, as the President indicated during the G20 meeting
last year, and which I indicated a commitment to when I
traveled to Italy for the first G8 Agriculture Ministers
meeting on food security ever. It is targeted, in terms of its
impact on the countries in sub-Saharan Africa and some of the
poor countries, such as Haiti is another targeted area, even
before the earthquake. And it is focused on three fundamental
approaches; first of all, increasing agricultural productivity
in these countries. And that involves USDA providing
opportunities for greater exchanges through the Borlaug and
Cochran fellowships, which we've requested additional resources
for. It is working with agricultural ministries, like we are in
Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan, to address specific issues
that we have expertise on that we can share. It is designed to
promote a science-based approach, in terms of biotechnology,
and the benefits that that could potentially have in increasing
crop production in drought areas, with drought-resistant crops
and other strategies, more appropriate use of fertilizer, a
better understanding of soil conditions, things of that nature.
Second, even if you grow the food, it doesn't necessarily
mean it gets to the people who need it; and therefore, it
doesn't necessarily create economic opportunity for those
farmers. So, we need to also focus on creating greater access,
and that deals with developing market strategies, developing
regulatory structure and legal frameworks that allow this to
happen, and the infrastructure, both the storage facilities to
avoid post-harvest loss, transportation facilities, and the
like.
And then, finally, even if it's available, even if it's
accessible, it may not be properly utilized. And so, therefore
it goes into an education effort to make sure that there's
proper refrigeration, proper handling, proper cooking of the
food so that it's safe for people to consume. When you do all
of that, you really do create a much more vibrant agricultural
economy. And in these countries that are fragile and are food
insecure, that is absolutely the first thing that has to
happen.
We are doing pretty significant work in Afghanistan. And,
you know, I know time doesn't permit me to go into great detail
about it, but I think we are seeing some results from that.
Senator Brownback. Well, I--one other thing that you didn't
mention, and it's not in your area, but I think it's just
critically important, is that--the structure of the government
in those countries. We--we've seen places--and particularly--I
know I can look at examples in sub-Sahara Africa, where we put
quite a bit of money in over a lot of years. And I've traveled
these places and you meet with the leadership and they kind of
ask the question, ``Where'd the money go?'' And that's why I
like the Millennium Challenge account approach, where they go--
there's a--a key piece of this is about governance, on how you
govern. And when places like China and India went to a more
open-market sector, and away from the way they were doing it,
systems and things started to flourish.
So, I would hope that we learn our lessons, too, from our
past engagement, when we put a fair amount of money in this, is
that it does matter whether a country is willing to help itself
and structure itself in a way that these dollars can take hold.
It's like whether it can take root or not, or are we going to
just throw some money in here. And I would kind of hold it
back, say, ``We're ready to do this, but you've got to change
these two things before we're going to put this--we're ready to
do it, and we want to do it.'' But, otherwise, I think we may
repeat some past problems, where we poured money into some
countries and we don't have a whole lot to show for it.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, that precise discussion took place
in Afghanistan, with reference to Minister Rahimi and his
efforts at developing this framework, part of which is change
management. His own ministry has to operate effectively. And we
made a commitment of resources, but it was conditioned on those
resources being used to bolster his capacity to actually do the
work that needs to be done, and to understand the core
competencies that a ministry requires. So, there is a concerted
effort, in that country and in all countries, to make sure that
we have the regulatory structures, the government structure and
framework that's actually going to make this work. And that's
certainly what we're focused on at USDA.
SPENDING CUTS
Senator Brownback. One final thought. And I really
appreciate your time and your knowledge of your subject and
your agency. Last year, when we went through the process,
chairman, on the floor we had a number of amendments proposed
by individuals suggesting different cuts in places within USDA.
Our office is going to go back through and look those over to
see if there were some good suggestions there of things that we
should look at cutting and maybe putting that in other places,
or even have a pruned-down budget even further. Because I think
we owe it to the taxpayer, in these times of, you know, record
deficits, to say, ``What is it we can do to get this number
down?'' We need to do our functions, we need to do them well,
but we also--with a $1.5 trillion deficit, we've just got to
get--we've got to get the numbers down. And so, we're going to
go back through and look at some of the suggestions our
colleagues put in, last year, for possibilities to get the
budget number down further.
And I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Secretary, for your time.
RESEARCH PROGRAMS
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Brownback.
Mr. Secretary, I'm pleased to see that the budget continues
the growth we began last year on the competitive Agriculture
Food and Research Initiative, known as AFRI. As you know, I'm a
strong supporter of this program. However, in order to pay for
the unprecedented increase that the budget proposes in AFRI, a
large number of other research programs are eliminated,
including formula funds.
As I said, I'm pleased to see the beginning of the long-
term growth for AFRI. Its mission, however, is different from
that of formula programs. Formula programs are, by their
nature, more flexible and able to rapidly respond to emerging
research needs which require more immediate action than a long-
term research contract. Can you respond to this concern?
Also, Mr. Secretary, I've heard from Senator Byrd, who has
expressed concern about proposed elimination of ongoing ARS
work in West Virginia. We'll be submitting some questions for
the record on behalf of Senator Byrd. I'd just like to know--
you to know that I'm going to submit those, and would
appreciate a response.
Secretary Vilsack. Very good, Mr. Chairman. Let me see if I
can respond. Our understanding of what we proposed on the
formula funding is that we maintained the funding that was
included in last year's budget, that basically it's the same
formula funding as the previous year.
We recognize the concerns that the subcommittee expressed
about the need to maintain formula funding, and we tried to
respect that with status quo formula funding. We did eliminate
some of the programs that were specifically designated, or
earmarked, if you will, by members of the subcommittee, as is
consistent with our practice, and refocus those resources into
a more competitive circumstance. We honestly think that we will
get a bigger bang and a better bang for our buck if we do this.
We want research that's actually going to move the dial. We
want research that's focused on key priorities that this
Congress, this administration, this country needs to focus on.
As it relates to ARS, we appreciate Senator Byrd's
concerns. Our view is that, before we begin spending additional
resources on ARS facilities, that we really need to take a step
back and do a strategic overview of precisely what facilities
we have, what condition they're in, and prioritize the
maintenance and expansion and new construction projects. We'd
like a year to be able to do that, and we'd like a small amount
of money to be able to do that, so that we can come back to
this subcommittee with a thoughtful and strategic approach to
improvements, to construction to these labs. We recognize the
important role they play. We just, again, want to make sure
we're using taxpayer dollars wisely.
FSIS BUDGET
Senator Kohl. All right, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate that.
Mr. Secretary, the FSIS budget request asks for a much
smaller increase than in recent years, but it does include
significant performance measures. This includes a goal of
decreasing total illnesses from all FSIS regulated foods by
more than 17 percent between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year
2010, as well as additional decreases in the following years.
Is FSIS on track to meet these goals?
Secretary Vilsack. We think they are, Mr. Chairman. I think
it's appropriate for me to say that there is a need for better
data collection so that we have a better understanding of
precisely what causes the difficulties and illnesses that
Americans experience, and at what part in the food chain those
difficulties are experienced. One of the things that we would
like to do is to increase data collection. We'd like to use
additional resources to focus on better data collection so that
we could focus on trend lines, establish baselines by which we
then can make better risk assessment and better decisions,
relative to where there may be problems.
We think we need to strengthen our capacity to respond to
multiple jurisdictional illnesses that cross State lines, which
is why we have proposed additional resources for strengthening
our public health programs. We think there needs to be expanded
research efforts on identifying pathogens that we may not even
be aware of today, that could potentially cause problems. We're
obviously continuing to focus on improving the HACCP program
with particular focus on improving surveillance of pathogens,
and expanded sampling that's necessary to do that.
And finally, we want to focus on our school food programs
to make sure that they are not creating difficulties for our
school children, in terms of unsafe food. We're doing a top-to-
bottom review of those programs. We will be looking at our
inspection and procurement programs. We'll also have an
independent set of eyes at the National Academy of Sciences
take a look at some of those programs. We want to improve a
notification system between the Federal Government, State, and
school districts.
And so, there's an awful lot of work going on within FSIS.
It isn't always necessarily about additional resources; it's
about making sure that you're focusing your time and attention
on the things that matter. And we want to make sure that we get
a regulatory structure in place with the resources that we
have.
STATE INSPECTION PROGRAMS
Senator Kohl. What about State-inspected meat programs, are
they going to be continuing to receive your attention and
funding?
Secretary Vilsack. You know, that is a question I will have
to get back to you on, unless the Deputy's going to----
Dr. Merrigan. We're----
Secretary Vilsack [continuing]. Bail me out here.
Dr. Merrigan [continuing]. In rulemaking, hopefully soon to
come out with a final rule, on the interstate meat. I know
that's something that Wisconsin is desperately waiting for, and
we've certainly had a lot of comments. I think it's a great way
to facilitate some of the niche markets. It's very important,
for the smaller plants, for opportunities there. And we're
looking forward to publication of the final rule. We did get a
lot of comments, and we're trying to fine tune the proposal so
everyone will be ready to embrace it.
Secretary Vilsack. I would also say, Mr. Chairman, that one
area that we are focused on relative to State inspections is a
continued effort to promote more frequent and better
inspections of schools. As you know, there is a requirement
that there be two inspections per year, of schools. Not all the
schools in America are up to that standard. We continue to
press States to make sure that they are encouraging that to
happen. We recognize, again, they are under a substantial
financial stress. We don't want this to be a casualty of that.
ELECTRIC LOAN PROGRAM
Senator Kohl. All right. Mr. Secretary, USDA is the
principal source of funding to improve the availability of
electric power throughout rural America. Rural areas face
unique challenges in accessing adequate power at affordable
costs because of the high cost to extend electric power to
rural household, farms, and communities due to the lower
customer density, as well as the remote locational aspects.
This budget cuts the electric power program level by more
than 30 percent, even though the subsidy costs for this program
are small. It further stops the use of these funds for the
construction, acquisition, or improvement of fossil-fueled
electric generating plants, unless those funds are for carbon
sequestration systems. We all support cleaner energy,
particularly in rural America, but this budget proposes drastic
changes in the USDA electric program.
Mr. Secretary, the planning horizon for large power
projects is years. How will these proposed program changes
affect the electric power supply to rural areas in the near
term? And what assurance can you provide that rural areas will
not be harmed, such as with higher electric rates and
unreliable power availability, as a result of these proposed
changes, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, we are obviously
encouraging farmers and ranchers across the country to take a
look at their own facilities to determine whether or not they
can be embracing more renewable energy opportunities. It's one
of the reasons for the REAP Program. We've seen a tremendous
interest in REAP; millions of dollars being spent to do audits
of operations and, I think, there's a growing recognition that
there is money to be made and money to be saved through
renewable energy. So, we obviously wanted to send a positive
message about renewable energy. The President has been very
clear about his priorities in this area.
I would say that it isn't always necessarily a budget that
is reflective of support that could be provided to an industry.
One of the things that we are looking at, which I know the RECs
have asked us look at, is this notion of how we use our
security position to enhance expansion. We have circumstances
today, where we made loans to RECs, where the value of the
assets that they have, have substantially appreciated since the
time of our loan, which means that our loan is over-secured, if
you will.
The question is, is there any way in which we can take a
look at that over-security concept to determine how we might be
able to provide additional resources without necessarily
spending additional dollars? These are the kinds of things that
we need to be looking at to make sure that, in these fiscally
difficult times, we're stretching the resources as effectively
as we can. So, we're looking at ways in which we can help the
RECs particularly in this way. We haven't yet made a decision
on it, but we are looking at it.
Senator Kohl. So, the assurances that I'm looking for here
this morning are forthcoming, but not----
Secretary Vilsack. Well, you know, I don't want to mislead
the chair. I'm not in a position today to tell you that all of
the demands are necessarily going to be met. I can tell you
that I think there is a growing demand on the renewable side,
which is why our budget reflects that. It's also consistent
with the President's comments to the world, to the globe. And I
think there are perhaps other strategies that we could utilize
that would supplement for additional resources. But, we
recognize and appreciate the importance of affordable power.
BROADBAND
Senator Kohl. On broadband, Mr. Secretary, for the last
several years, substantial funding has been provided annually
to extend broadband service throughout rural America. In
addition, the Recovery Act made a substantial investment to
strengthen the program with funds that must be obligated by
this September. This budget seeks additional funding for
broadband loans for fiscal year 2011. Mr. Secretary, please
describe the progress you are making extending broadband
service to remote, unserved, and underserved rural areas. By
the end of this year, how much of rural America do you think
will still be without adequate broadband service? Do you expect
to obligate all of the Recovery Act funds for this by this
September? And with the abundance of funding already provided
for this program, can you justify an additional $400 million in
fiscal year 2011?
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, I think it's fair to say
that the tremendous work that Congress and the President did in
the Recovery Act in creating opportunities for broadband
expansion represent a significant downpayment, but by no means
a balloon payment, on the need for expanded broadband access in
the United States.
We've seen literally thousands of applications for these
resources, far in excess of the resources that were made
available in the Recovery Act. I believe we are on track to
obligate our resources by September 30 from the Recovery Act,
but there will still be significant demand after those
applications have been approved and funds are provided.
What we are trying to do with this is to emphasize,
particularly in rural communities, the importance of having
this technology. It isn't just simply expanding broadband, it's
making sure that people in rural communities understand how
best to utilize it. Whether it's distance learning, or
telemedicine, or business expansion by expanding markets from
local to global markets, or the opportunities for farmers and
ranchers to have realtime information. There is a need for
additional education for people to understand that this is a
tool that they ought to have, if they have to pay a
subscription fee or whatever, they ought to be willing to make
that investment, because it will return that investment.
I would say that, as I said earlier in my earlier comments,
it is a linchpin, a pillar of a new rural economy that we have
to construct in this country. Without that technology,
businesses, farmers, ranchers, communities will not be able to
succeed in the 21st century.
So, I think we have to continue to invest. I think we have
to be wise about our investments. We have to make sure that
folks understand how to utilize the resource, that they have
the financial wherewithal and the technological expertise to
utilize it properly in communities, and that we need to look
for projects that will benefit not just a single community, but
a region, a group of communities, multiple communities from
resources.
We're seeing projects for example, my home State recently
received an award in which 12 counties, 90,000 people, will be
impacted by this. I think it was something like 30,000 small
business operations and farms and activities in this area would
be benefited. So, it's an enormous opportunity here. So, I
would encourage the subcommittee to look strongly at continuing
to invest in this very important technology.
Senator Kohl. You've made the point, and I agree with you,
that broadband is absolutely essential to future of rural
America. When do you imagine that we'll have full broadband
service, as well as, as you pointed out, the ability of
individuals to know how to use it?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I'm not sure I can give you a
specific date. I will tell you that I think we have a ways to
go. I know my State, when I left as Governor, we had roughly 90
percent of the State covered, but that didn't necessarily mean
that it was being fully utilized and fully appreciated. And
that took 5 or 6 years of hard work on the part of our utility
companies and on the part of our small telephone companies to
make that happen in the State regulatory structures.
So, there's a lot of work yet to be done here, but I think
we need to accelerate. I would say that a continued investment
is an indication, from this Congress and this administration,
of the importance of it and the need to continue to look for
ways to leverage these resources. And part of our challenge,
candidly, is that there are places where you may have 300 or
400 people, but the investment will be multiple millions of
dollars. And so, it becomes very difficult to be able to
explain to people why a subsidy of $50,000 or $60,000 or
$70,000 per customer can be warranted, which is why we're
looking at lower-cost strategies to at least get people further
ahead in the technology arena than they are, whether it's
satellite or other strategies that may be perhaps a little bit
less expensive than broadband, but can still provide access to
the Internet, can still provide some distance learning
opportunities. And so, it's conceivable that, at the end of
this process, if we have resources left over from the
applications with the Recovery Act, that we'll put a small
amount of money out there for these communities that just
cannot justify a $50,000 subsidy, but we could justify a
satellite operation or a tower or some kind of antenna system.
FOOD BANKS
Senator Kohl. All right.
Mr. Secretary, according to a Feeding America study, more
than 37 million people receive emergency food each year through
food banks and other agencies. This is an increase of 46
percent since 2006. With the current economic situation not
improving for many Americans, what is the Department doing to
help food banks make sure people have access to food?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, the Recovery Act provided us a
tremendous shot in the arm, and we got those resources out as
quickly as possible. We'll continue to use our commodity
purchasing capacity. It's a little bit limited, based on
activities that have taken place prior to this year, but we
will continue to look for ways in which we will provide help
and assistance.
EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Senator Kohl. The budget includes a small increase for the
Emergency Food Assistance Program. Do you believe this increase
is sufficient?
Secretary Vilsack. The answer to that question, Senator,
depends, in part, on how well and how quickly the economy
recovers. We expect and anticipate that we're going to see a
steady increase in economic activity, as we have seen in the
last couple of months, with our stock market being stabilized
and the housing market being somewhat stabilized. Our hope is
that that help will be reflected in job growth at some point.
And then, when that happens, there'll be less demand and less
pressure. But, in the meantime, we want to provide some
resources that will allow us to respond. Whether this is enough
or not, it somewhat depends on where we are 6 months from now
or 9 months from now. Our hope is that it is enough, but I'm
not going to say that we wouldn't come back here, at some point
in time, and tell you we need more.
SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT
Senator Kohl. Mr. Secretary, this subcommittee provided
grants, through the stimulus bill, for the purchase of school
food service equipment. Can you please provide an update on the
status of those funds?
Secretary Vilsack. Over 5,000 schools received assistance
from those resources. And I will say that part of the child
nutrition reauthorization effort is also focused on continuing
to provide additional resources for equipment. The reason for
this is, a lot of schools are not in a position to take full
advantage of more nutritious food, because they don't have the
capacity to prepare it or deal with it. They may have a fryer,
but they may not have something that can steam or cook
vegetables, for example.
So, we have to continue to look for ways to provide
resources and help, both on the equipment side and the
technological side, and training of school food personnel. So,
that's part of what we're proposing, in terms of our
reauthorization effort.
HUNGER-FREE COMMUNITY GRANTS
Senator Kohl. Mr. Secretary, last year we provided funding
for Hunger-Free Community grants, as authorized in the farm
bill. What is the status of those funds?
Secretary Vilsack. We asked for additional resources in
that area; I think it's a $3 million increase. There is a real
opportunity here for us to encourage more innovative and
creative strategies. We are particularly concerned--again, back
to children--particularly concerned about the summer months,
when our feeding programs just, frankly, don't get enough
resources and assistance, and there are a lot of youngsters who
don't get adequately fed.
So, we're encouraging, through the grant program, through
our reauthorization efforts, to try to find additional
resources to incent more creative and thoughtful approaches.
How can we take resources and utilize them so that we go to
where children are, for example, in the summer? Are there
programs where we can identify where youngsters are, as opposed
to compelling youngsters to come to a central location for a
congregate meal type of activity? Is there a way in which
ballparks, swimming pools, playgrounds, where kids will
normally and traditionally congregate, and could we figure out
some kind of mobile strategy that would meet those needs? How
do we continue to provide backpack opportunities during the
weekends when there is a snowstorm and school's out for week
because people can't get to school, what do we do for those
youngsters?
So, we want to incent and encourage communities to focus on
creative strategies. They're going to need resources and
incentives to do that, which is why we're asking for additional
resources.
Senator Kohl. Very good.
I'd like to thank everybody here today for attending.
Secretary Vilsack, we appreciate your participation
particularly, with your assistance Dr. Merrigan, and Dr.
Steele.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Before we recess this subcommittee hearing, Senator Tim
Johnson has asked that his statement be made part of the
record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Tim Johnson
Thank you, Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Brownback, for holding
today's Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on the
President's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget. Secretary Vilsack, thank
you for coming to the Hill today to discuss USDA's funding proposal.
Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your working to implement Country of
Origin Labeling according to Congressional intent, and look forward to
reviewing USDA's rules regarding agricultural competition as authorized
by the 2008 farm bill. I am hopeful that together, we can make some
meaningful improvements for independent producers. The President's
fiscal year 2011 budget contains some very good things, including a
substantial investment in nutrition as with the proposed increase for
the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and investment in child
nutrition and WIC.
The budget, however, also includes some questionable funding cuts,
including the elimination of the Resource, Conservation and Development
program. While the conservation funding included in the budget allows
for a 10 percent increase in acreage enrollment over 2010 levels, I am
concerned for the proposed reductions in acreage or funding which may
impact conservation programs in the future.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for your time this morning and I look
forward to working with you on priorities of importance to South
Dakota.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Kohl. We'd like to request that all members submit
any questions for the record within 1 week, which is March 9.
Secretary Vilsack, also like to request that USDA respond to
those questions within 4 weeks, which would be Tuesday, April
6. We look forward to working with each of you as we continue
this appropriations process.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
healthy food financing initiative
Question. The Budget proposes an appropriation of $35,000,000 under
the Office of the Secretary plus a reserve of $16,280,000 from other
agencies for the USDA component of a multi-departmental Healthy Food
Financing Initiative that would total in excess of $400,000,000. The
goal of this initiative is laudable. Improvement in accessibility of
healthy foods to many populations will help combat obesity and other
health problems tied to improper diet.
This initiative is described as ``multi-year'' in nature. Do you
foresee that this program will operate indefinitely or do you have a
specific timeframe in which you expect to meet the program's
expectations? What measurements will you use to determine program
effectiveness?
Answer. Through the new multi-year Healthy Food Financing
Initiative and by engaging with the private sector, the administration
will work to eliminate food deserts across the country within 7 years.
With the first year of funding, the administration's initiative will
leverage enough investments to begin expanding healthy food options
into as many as one-fifth of the Nation's food deserts and create
thousands of jobs in urban and rural communities across the Nation.
The objectives of the initiative are to increase access to healthy
and affordable food choices in struggling urban and rural communities,
and help reduce the high incidence of diet related diseases; create
jobs and economic development; and establish market opportunities for
farmers and ranchers. As a result, measurements of program
effectiveness will include the number of new grocery stores and other
healthy food retail outlets built in food deserts, the number of people
previously living in food deserts who are served by the new retailers,
and other such output measures. It is going to take a lot longer,
possibly decades to have definitive data on improved diets, better
health and reduced obesity. USDA plans to involve evaluators in the
initiative to ensure proper measurements of program effectiveness and
overall success of the initiative.
Question. Please describe how USDA will coordinate this initiative
with other departments and please explain the specific functions the
other departments will employ in carrying out this initiative.
Answer. Each of the three agencies brings a particular expertise
and set of resources to the Healthy Food Financing Initiative.
Specifically:
The Department of Agriculture specializes in improving access to
healthy foods through nutrition assistance programs, creating business
opportunities for America's farmers, and promoting economic development
in rural areas. USDA's proposed funding level of $50 million will
support more than $180 million in public and private investments in the
form of loans, grants, promotion, and other programs that can provide
financial and technical assistance to enhance access to healthy foods
in underserved communities, expand demand and retail outlets for farm
products, and increase the availability of locally and regionally
produced foods. USDA has a solid track record of supporting successful
farmers markets, and has also invested in grocery stores and creating
agricultural supply chains for them, such as in the People's Grocery
project in Oakland, CA.
The Treasury Department will support private sector financing of
healthy foods options in distressed urban and rural communities.
Through the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) and financial assistance to
Treasury-certified community development financial institutions
(CDFIs), Treasury has a proven track record in expanding access to
nutritious foods by catalyzing private sector investment. The Healthy
Food Financing Initiative builds on that track record, with $250
million in authority for the NMTC and $25 million for financial
assistance to CDFIs devoted to helping finance healthy food options.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) specializes in
community-based efforts to improve the economic and physical health of
people in distressed areas. HHS will dedicate up to $20 million in
Community Economic Development program funds to the Healthy Food
Financing Initiative. Through the CED program, HHS will award
competitive grants to Community Development Corporations to support
projects that finance grocery stores, farmers markets, and other
sources of fresh nutritious food. These projects will serve the dual
purposes of facilitating access to healthy food options while creating
job and business development opportunities in low-income communities,
particularly since grocery stores often serve as anchor institutions in
commercial centers.
Question. Since this initiative will combine the efforts of a
number of different USDA agencies and mission areas, how will you
ensure that proper coordination will occur and who or which agency will
be ultimately responsible for this initiative?
Answer. USDA will establish an internal coordination mechanism.
Leadership for the initiative within USDA is currently assigned to Ann
Wright, Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs,
and Cheryl Cook, Deputy Under Secretary for Rural Development. They are
assisted by staff throughout the Department.
Question. Please provide an explanation of specifically what each
USDA agency involved with this initiative will do to carry it out at
both the headquarters and field level.
Answer. The Agricultural Marketing Service, Rural Development, and
the Office of the Secretary will work together to ensure that expertise
within USDA is appropriately leveraged to carry out the initiative. AMS
has considerable knowledge and expertise enhancing food access for low
income populations and improving retail market access for small and
mid-sized producers. Rural Development has significant expertise
funding and supporting infrastructure development for purposes of
economic development.
Together, the two agencies, working in concert with the Office of
the Secretary will make funding available to provide:
--Technical assistance to grantees to help them with facility, and
distribution logistics, and food marketing;
--Grants, loans, and loan guarantees in support of business and
infrastructure development and investment; and
--Administrative support of HFFI and project evaluation.
Each agency will work through its existing programs to carry out
the program. There will be no reprogramming of funds:
Rural Development
Rural Development's Community Facility Grant Program supports the
success of rural communities by providing loans and grants for the
construction, acquisition, or renovation of community facilities or for
the purchase of equipment for community projects.
The Business and Industry loan program is designed to help new and
existing businesses in rural areas gain access to affordable capital.
The Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program provides grants for
rural projects that finance and facilitate development of small and
emerging rural businesses.
The Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program provides loans and
grants to support new and existing rural micro businesses by providing
funds to microenterprise development organizations for micro lending
and technical assistance.
The Intermediary Relending Program (IRP) provides loans to local
organizations that relend to rural businesses.
The Rural Business Opportunity Grant Program provides grants for
training and technical assistance to support economic development.
Agricultural Marketing Service
The Farmers Market Promotion Program provides grants to support the
development of farmers markets and other farm to consumer marketing
businesses. Money from this program can be spent to equip farmers
markets with electronic benefit transfer equipment so credit cards and
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits can be
redeemed at the markets.
The Wholesale, Farmers and Alternative Market Development Program
provides technical assistance to create or upgrade markets and
marketing facilities.
Question. Since the USDA initiative envisions the use of Rural
Development funds to enhance food accessibility in urban areas, how do
you reconcile the requirement and underlying objective that rural
development programs are enacted to serve ``rural'' America?
Answer. Programs that serve rural America do not necessarily need
to be located in rural areas. In the case of the Healthy Food Financing
Initiative, rural areas are expected to benefit from the increased
demand for agricultural commodities. In addition, all America will
benefit from a healthier citizenry and stronger economy in both rural
and urban areas.
Question. How will you prioritize areas in the Nation to
participate in this initiative and, more to the point, how will you
determine where factors such as crime rates and lack of security are
the dominant forces that determine success or failure of businesses
such as full service grocery stores? What effect will lack of security
or similar factors play in your determination where to make Federal
investment?
Answer. The administration has set an ambitious goal for the
initiative--to eliminate food deserts across the country in 7 years. To
accomplish this goal, the initiative will inevitably need to fund
projects in areas of the Nation that suffer from high crime rates and
lack of security. Agencies providing assistance under the initiative
will draw upon past work they have funded in communities with similar
characteristics and study and apply the lessons learned from similar
initiatives such as the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative to
ensure best practices are being applied to the selection and
implementation of projects. In addition, the agencies will
strategically invest in projects in the initial years that will further
the knowledge and practice of ensuring successful projects in these
communities. It is worth noting that crime and lack of security have
not stopped fast food establishments from thriving in food deserts and
other deprived areas.
Question. Since a main (if not the primary) underlying purpose of
this initiative is to improve the diets of Americans who might
otherwise have to rely on food items from less than full-service
grocery stores where it is more common to find items of convenience
rather than high nutritional value, is the Department also looking at
other changes to improve the nutritional intake of Americans. For
example, do you think the SNAP program should be reformed to restrict
benefit use to disallow items of low nutritional quality?
Answer. By most standards, almost all American diets are in need of
improvement. Given interest in using Federal nutrition assistance
programs to promote healthy choices, some suggest that SNAP recipients
should be prohibited from using their benefits to buy foods with
limited nutritional value. However, there are serious problems with the
rationale, feasibility and potential effectiveness of this proposal.
First, there are no clear standards for defining foods as good or
bad or healthy or not healthy. Foods contain many components that can
affect health, and diets contain many foods. As a result, it is
challenging to determine whether and the point at which the presence or
absence of desirable nutrients outweighs the presence of nutrients to
be avoided in ruling a food in or out.
Second, there are operational issues. Implementation of food
restrictions would increase program complexity and costs. The task of
identifying, evaluating and tracking the nutritional profile of every
food available would be substantial. The burden of identifying which
products met Federal standards would fall on an expanded bureaucracy or
on manufacturers and producers asked to certify that their products
meet Federal standards.
Third, restrictions may be ineffective in changing the purchases of
participants. About 70 percent of all SNAP participants who receive
less than the maximum benefit allotment are expected to purchase a
portion of their food with their own money. There is no guarantee that
restricting the use of SNAP benefits would affect food purchases other
than substituting one form of payment (cash) for another (SNAP
benefits).
Finally, there is no strong research-based evidence that SNAP
participation contributes to poor diet quality. Recipients are no more
likely than higher income consumers to choose foods with little
nutritional value; thus the basis for singling out SNAP recipients and
restricting their food choices is not clear.
USDA believes the better approach is nutrition education about
healthy eating and physical activity to foster real behavior change.
Incentives rather than restrictions that encourage purchases of certain
foods or expanded nutrition education to enable participants to make
healthy choices are more practical options and likely to be more
effective in achieving the dietary improvements that promote good
health. The Healthy Incentive Pilot program, established by the farm
bill and supported with $20 million in 2009 will explore this question.
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget proposes $6 million to expand
this effort.
office of ecosystem services markets
Question. The Budget includes an increase of $2,021,000 for the
Office of Ecosystem Services Markets, as authorized under section 2709
of the 2008 farm bill. It is stated that the purpose of this request is
to expand the Department's efforts to develop technical guidelines to
quantify environmental services provided by America's farmers,
ranchers, and forest landowners. Since this request is for the
expansion of Departmental efforts, please provide information on the
activities (including funding levels) currently underway that serve
this purpose.
Answer. The Office of Environmental Markets (OEM), originally
established in December 2008 as the Office of Ecosystem Services
Markets, builds on and will complement a strong foundation within USDA
to assess the environmental services provided by conservation and land
management actions. Ongoing USDA efforts include: the work of the
Climate Change Program Office within the Office of the Chief Economist
established the only set of comprehensive farm-level greenhouse gas
estimation guidelines used in the Government's Voluntary Greenhouse Gas
reporting Registry; efforts to assess the conservation and
environmental benefits of USDA actions through the Conservation Effects
Assessment Program; and monitoring resource conditions through programs
including the National Resources Inventory (NRI) and the Resource
Conservation Assessment (RCA).
OEM is currently active in a project called Farm of the Future that
demonstrates how landowners are accelerating their environmental
performance and receiving a positive return on their investment by
participating in environmental markets. In addition, OEM is leading a
series of inter-Departmental dialogues that brings together senior
leadership from across the Federal family to discuss coordination for
the development of performance metrics and overall infrastructure for
environmental markets at a national level. In 2010, the OEM intends to
conduct an assessment of existing science-based technical guidelines
and develop recommendations on national guidelines for greenhouse
gases, water quality, biodiversity and wetlands.
OEM will provide preliminary recommendations for integrating
carbon, water, wetlands and biodiversity values on the same landscape.
OEM also intends to assess existing registries and other reporting
mechanisms and develop initial recommendations to the Secretary for a
national, integrated registration process. OEM is well positioned to
build on existing information and move in a new direction that expands
the Department's work to build the infrastructure for a robust
marketplace.
Question. While section 2709 of the 2008 farm bill directs the
Secretary to issue guidelines regarding this effort, it does not call
for the establishment of a separate office. Why do you feel this is
necessary? Why can't these functions be carried out under the Office of
the Chief Economist, the Economic Research Service, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, or some other appropriate agency?
Answer. All these agencies you mention play a critical role in
developing information to study and support environmental markets
including the necessary research. To be effective and increase
communication between all of the relevant parties, these efforts must
be coordinated and having a central organization to coordinate this
work across USDA and the Federal Government as well as with the private
sector requires an office with a specific focus. The Office of
Environmental Markets (OEM) is the entity that will coordinate across
Federal and private sector lines all these critical elements.
Question. Please provide a description of the types of services
markets that you envision as coming under the purview of this activity
and please explain how they will generate additional income to
participants.
Answer. The four environmental markets that USDA will potentially
be focusing on may include greenhouse gases (carbon trading); water
quality trading: (nutrients, sediment, and temperature) conservation
banking (species and habitat); and wetland banking. The Department,
through the Office of Environmental Markets and the Climate Change
Program Office, will potentially work to develop guidelines for these
markets consistent with the guidance provided in section 2709 of the
2008 farm bill. Environmental markets may offer a cost effective
alternative for regulated communities to meet their environmental
obligations by purchasing environmental benefits from landowners who
apply enhanced conservation actions on their operations. These
conservation solutions could be applied at a fraction of the cost of
technological options and typically include additional environmental
benefits as well. Landowners would potentially have the option of
engaging in environmental markets by offering new commodities such as
water quality, habitat and other environmental benefits as part of
their suite of products for sale.
office of tribal relations
Question. The Office of Tribal Relations was created in fiscal year
2010 with initial funding of $1,000,000. Please describe the activities
and accomplishments of this Office during the current fiscal year and
those that are planned for fiscal year 2011.
Answer. The Office of Tribal Relations serves as the USDA central
point of contact for all 564 federally recognized tribal governments.
The Director of the Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) serves as the
Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Tribal Affairs. Interim staff
members have been detailed into the office from around the Department
to begin operations, and the hiring of permanent staff is under way. In
fiscal year 2010, OTR has participated in the White House Tribal
Nations Conference of November 2009 and led the development of USDA's
Action Plan for Tribal Consultation and Collaboration. As part of the
development of the Action Plan, OTR participated in a number of
meetings and venues seeking consultative input from tribal leaders. OTR
is now leading efforts of the Department's Native American Working
Group to implement the Action Plan.
Planned activities for fiscal year 2011 include: finalization and
adoption of a new USDA Departmental Regulation on Tribal Consultation;
launch of USDA Employee Education and Training initiative relating to
tribal consultation and collaboration; launch of a reporting and
accountability structure to track tribal consultation and collaboration
activities throughout the Department; participation in numerous
consultation activities throughout the Department; and launch of
regional consultative venues to more fully engage tribal leadership in
consultation and collaborative activities.
office of the chief economist
Question. One of the functions of the Chief Economist relates to
the work of the Climate Change Program Office (CCPO), which coordinates
the Department's climate change activities and generally represents the
Department on issues and policies relating to this phenomenon. Since
agricultural production is extremely sensitive to changes in weather
patterns and the consequences of extreme weather events, please
describe ongoing efforts of CCPO and policy implications of the
Department that work to achieve protection to American producers and
agricultural production around the world.
Answer. The Climate Change Program Office (CCPO) within the Office
of the Chief Economist (OCE) provides syntheses and assessment of the
implications of climate change on agricultural and forested systems. In
2008, OCE released The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land
Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity. Since then, OCE has
followed up with shorter reports and brochures designed to make this
information available to farmers, ranchers, forest land owners, and the
general public. OCE/CCPO has responsibilities for coordinating the
Department's research program on climate change to ensure that the
Department's research is providing answers to the most pressing
questions related to climate change and is leading efforts to develop a
USDA Strategic Plan for Climate Change Research. A goal will be to
provide credible, validated, and effective climate change science and
technology and to make this information easily available to internal
and external USDA customers and stakeholders on scales relevant to
decisionmaking.
Question. Were there any outcomes of the Climate Change Summit 2009
in Copenhagen, or other national or international meetings in the past
year, that have affected the operations of CCPO or the Department?
Answer. Several meetings on climate change in 2009 will affect the
work of CCPO and the Department. The 15th Conference of the Parties
(COP 15) to the Framework Convention on Climate Change produced a new
international agreement--the Copenhagen Accord. Under this Accord, the
United States has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17
percent from 2005 levels by 2020--contingent on domestic legislation.
In addition, a series of preparatory meetings were held in 2009 prior
to COP 15. These included meetings in Bonn, Bangkok, and Barcelona.
Land use issues for developed and developing countries were central
to these negotiations. CCPO led USDA's involvement in the negotiations
and ensured that USDA technical expertise were applied to the issues
of: how to address emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
in developing countries, how to include agricultural mitigation
opportunities in new agreements or arrangements, and how to account for
forest carbon in reporting systems.
At COP-15, USDA made a series of announcements related to climate
change actions domestically and internationally, including the Global
Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases and a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy to work
together to reach a 25 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
while benefiting dairy farmers.
office of budget and program analysis
Question. For many years, this subcommittee has enjoyed an
excellent working relationship with the Office of Budget and Program
Analysis (OBPA) that in our view has been mutually beneficial to both
the Congress and the Department. Last year, a reorganization of the
Department occurred in which the status of OBPA was apparently reduced
and the agency placed under the Assistant Secretary for Administration.
The Committee continues to be concerned that many of the functions of
OBPA that have been instrumental over the years for sound and useful
exchanges of information between the Committee and the Department have
lost, to a degree at least, their vitality and depth of purpose. Are
all reports requested in appropriations acts or reports being
coordinated and reviewed by OBPA, and if not, please explain.
Answer. OBPA continues to review all reports requested in the
Appropriations Acts.
Question. Please identify any categories of information or policy
recommendations that are not being reviewed by OBPA that were prior to
the reorganization.
Answer. Under the delegations of authority OBPA is assigned
responsibility for a range of budget, legislative and regulatory
analysis, process and reporting functions. These delegations of
authority have not been changed as part of the Departmental Management
reorganization.
Question. Please identify Departmental positions that have
management authority over OBPA who did not have such authority prior to
the reorganization.
Answer. Since the reorganization, the Assistant Secretary for
Administration and the Chief Financial Officer has management authority
over OBPA.
office of advocacy and outreach
Question. The Budget proposes a substantial increase in funding for
the Office of Advocacy and Outreach, from the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level of $1,700,000 to $7,009,000 for fiscal year 2011. Of this
increase, $4,000,000 is a transfer from the Rural Housing Service
account for carrying out a Farm Worker Program. Please describe the
activities and accomplishments of the Farm Worker Program in fiscal
year 2010.
Answer. The budget request is a $1.3 million increase for the
Office of Advocacy and Outreach. Four million dollars is provided
through RHS in 2010 for the 14204 program to fund farm worker job
stability, safety and training demonstration projects. This funding
will be used to assist agricultural employers and farmworkers by
improving the supply, stability, safety, and training the of
agricultural labor force. USDA plans to assist with: agricultural labor
skills development; the provision of agricultural labor market
information; transportation; short-term housing; workplace literacy;
health and safety instructions; and other supportive services.
An interim Farm Worker Program Leader has been assigned to the
position while the selection for a permanent Supervisory Leader is
underway. The interim leader has developed a plan of operations for the
program within the Office of Advocacy and Outreach. The program leader
is working on emergency assistance for farm workers in the devastated
Florida freeze zone, meeting with Farm Worker organizations and Faith
Based Organizations to discuss potential USDA assistance, and
developing a Federal Emergency Humanitarian Farm Worker Aid Plan. The
Farm Worker Program Leader chairs the Farm Worker subcommittee of the
USDA Deputy Secretary Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative.
Other activities of the Farm Worker Program scheduled for 2010
include: administer funding as available of section 2281 of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, low-income and
migrant seasonal farm worker funding; work with USDA, Federal, State,
local agencies, as well as, Faith Based Organizations, Farm Workers
Organizations and other CBO's to provide emergency humanitarian aid to
Farm Workers in disaster areas; maintain external communication with
CBO's, Farm Worker Organizations, Faith Based Organizations,
educational institutions and others to keep abreast of emerging topics,
trends, and community needs to assist in appropriate USDA response to
Farm Worker issues; and provide internal leadership and council to USDA
agencies on Farm Worker issues, as well as, compare community needs
with USDA programs and make recommendations for program modifications
or development.
Question. To what extent does the Farm Worker Program duplicate the
mission of NIFA extension and education programs?
Answer. The Farm Worker Coordination Program was established to
meet the needs of the farm workers that are not currently being
addressed in USDA and to better coordinate existing USDA programs and
activities to assist this community. NIFA Extension is managed by
individual State educational institutions which are not always
consistent nationwide in addressing the needs of farm workers. The Farm
Worker Coordination Program will provide leadership to USDA agencies
and others to provide consistency in program delivery. The program will
also provide leadership in the modification of existing programs and
development of new programs that benefit Farm Workers, especially those
that assist farm workers to become farm operators or owners. This
program will work in conjunction with NIFA Extension as well as all the
other USDA agencies.
Question. To what extent has the centralization of program outreach
activities for various USDA agencies into the consolidated Office of
Advocacy and Outreach resulted in savings in the appropriations
accounts of the affected agencies? Will the requested increase in
funding for this Office result in even further savings in fiscal year
2011?
Answer. The program outreach activities of USDA agencies have not
been centralized in the Office of Advocacy and Outreach (OAO). Congress
established the OAO in the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008
and established duties which included establishing and monitoring goals
and objectives of the Department to increase participation in programs
by small, beginning, or socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers;
assessing effectiveness of Departmental outreach programs; developing
and implementing a plan to coordinate outreach activities; providing
input on agency programmatic and policy decisions; measuring outcomes
of programs and activities of the Department on small farms and
ranches, beginning farmers and ranchers, and socially disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers; and recommending new initiatives to the
Secretary. As a result of these activities, USDA anticipates more
effective, coordinated and focused outreach across the USDA agencies,
who will continue to maintain their own outreach programs. The 2008 Act
also transferred several USDA programs residing in other agencies to
OAO, which has already begun efforts to increase access and utility of
these programs to small, beginning, and socially disadvantaged farmers
and ranchers.
office of the chief information officer budget
Question. In fiscal year 2010, an increase of nearly $44,000,000
was provided to the Office of the Chief Information Officer for IT
security upgrades. In view of recent breaches of USDA IT information
systems, the Congress believed this investment was necessary to protect
the integrity of Departmental security. Please describe how these funds
have been used.
Answer. The fiscal year 2010 Appropriation for the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office of the Chief Information
Officer (OCIO) included nearly $44,000,000 in new funding to support
our strategy to improve information technology security. The increase
in funding is being used in support of the following three initiatives:
--Nearly $17.2 million to Conduct Network Security Assessments to
analyze the state of USDA's network to identify
vulnerabilities;
--Nearly $14.3 million to Procure and Deploy Tools for enhanced
monitoring and detection; and
--Nearly $12.3 million to establish an Agriculture Security
Operations Center to monitor and protect USDA's systems.
A summary of activities through early February, 2010, addressing
each of the three initiatives in turn, is provided below for the
record.
[The information follows:]
Conduct Network Security Assessments.--The purpose of this
initiative is to gain a comprehensive understanding of how USDA
computers and networking equipment are interconnected and the existing
vulnerabilities of that equipment. Nearly $17 million has been
allocated for this initiative. The following paragraphs provide an
overview of key projects.
The Vulnerability Assessment project is underway. We shall complete
11 assessments by the end of fiscal year 2010. Currently, we have
completed assessments of three USDA agencies and staff offices: the
Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS), Washington Communications and
Telecommunications Services (WCTS), and the National Information
Technology Center (NITC). An assessment of the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) is currently under way and one for the
International Technology Services (ITS) is ramping up. The 11
assessments represent USDA networks carrying 80 percent or more of the
Department's total network traffic. We are documenting the methods and
tools involved to create a repeatable process that we can apply
regularly to ensure our knowledge remains current and improve our
internal processes.
The Network Modeling and Performance project is in acquisition
phase. We plan to complete implementation of the project in the 4th
quarter fiscal year 2010. Once completed, we shall have a comprehensive
network inventory, including diagrams showing the interconnections.
This shall help identify the most economical and effective placement of
security devices to protect data connections within and external to
USDA networks. With these devices we can identify and analyze patterns
at key points in the network to thwart attacks and prevent data
leakage.
The Security Management Sensors and Console project is in
acquisition phase. We have identified our core requirements and are in
the process of selecting suitable vendors to install the sensors and
console. We shall have our security management sensors deployed to 12
locations within USDA to protect network traffic. We plan to complete
the acquisition and begin implementation in the 4th quarter fiscal year
2010 and complete implementation in the 1st quarter fiscal year 2011.
Collectively the sensors will analyze and protect our networks from
vulnerabilities and report centrally to a management console at the
Agriculture Security Operations Center.
Procure and Deploy Security Tools.--Acquiring and deploying a
number of security tools will help us defend against exploits of
vulnerabilities as well as maintain a near real-time understanding of
the health our networks and the devices attached to them. Nearly $14
million has been allocated for this initiative. The following
paragraphs provide an overview of key projects.
The Endpoint Security project is in the operations phase. This
project installs a piece of software on each end user desktop, laptop
and server within USDA. It allows us to examine reports centrally, and,
ultimately, manage end user computers connected to our networks. As of
the first part of February 2010, we have installed the software on over
70,000 devices; the remaining devices will be completed in the 3rd
quarter of fiscal year 2010. Currently, the software where deployed
allows us to identify the status of patching and compliance with the
Federal Desktop Core Configuration. We have been using the data to
identify commercial software vulnerabilities and plan the remediation
efforts.
Our Whole Disk Encryption (WDE) project is in the operations phase.
Full implementation is expected by 4th quarter fiscal year 2010. By
encrypting the entire hard drive we nearly eliminate the possibility
that unauthorized users will gain access to sensitive government
information from lost or stolen equipment. As of the first part of
February 2010, we have installed WDE on over 36,000 laptops. WDE is
fully implemented on laptops across 18 agencies and staff offices. We
are continuing our efforts to implement WDE across the remaining
agencies and staff offices.
The Email Security project is in the acquisition phase. This
project enhances our Enterprise Mail Solution to increase our capacity
so that we can inspect all email passing through our email gateway to
allow for a broader protection against data loss and malicious
attachments. When completed, we will have a capability to classify data
across departmental systems based on key indicators or data patterns.
The Email Security project will be operational in the 3rd quarter
fiscal year 2010.
The ASOC Information Technology Service Management (ITSM) project
is in the development phase. ITSM will provide USDA with the capability
to record IT security incidents Department-wide and enable a more
robust analysis of incident trends and patterns. ASOC is modeling its
ITSM after the one in use at the Department of Justice's Security
Operations Center. ITSM will be operational in the 3rd quarter fiscal
year 2010.
The Data Loss Prevention project is in the pilot phase. We are
evaluating a number of commercial products to determine the best
solution to preventing costly leaks of data to outside the USDA
networks. Once completed, we shall analyze the results of the pilot to
determine the most economical and effective way to acquire a solution
that can be deployed across the entire USDA network. The pilot will be
completed in 3rd quarter fiscal year 2010.
There are several other projects where we are in either the
evaluation or acquisition phase regarding products to support functions
such as computer forensics and file protection. These proactive
measures shall reduce our exposure to vulnerabilities and provide a
greater control of the health of our systems.
Establish the Security Operations Center.--The new Agriculture
Security Operations Center (ASOC) is ramping up operations and has
taken responsibility for the ongoing IT security operations functions
of USDA. This fiscal year alone the ASOC has responded to 75 percent
more incidents in the first 4 months as compared to the same timeframe
last fiscal year. This higher incident rate is an indication that USDA
is evolving to a more mature and proactive stance regarding security
monitoring and incident handling. Approximately $12 million has been
allocated for this initiative.
We have completed the organizational design of the ASOC and have
begun staffing its critical positions with talented Federal employees.
In the meantime, we have obtained a number of contractor services to
support our daily operations while we complete our staffing. The new
organization is active in issuing guidance to our component agencies
and staff offices to address their IT security needs in the face of
increasing exposure to complex technologies and social networking. The
ASOC is overseeing the execution of all the initiatives and projects
listed above to ensure the citizens of the United States that waste and
duplication are eliminated and that the results address the greatest
risk to the security of Federal information assets entrusted to the
care of the Department of Agriculture.
it security risks
Question. To what extent have security risks been resolved and if
any still exist, what plans do you have to resolve those problems?
Answer. New security risks are always appearing, and the methods to
mitigate them entail balancing conflicting business requirements with
resources which are not unlimited. The result always includes some
residual risk and our challenge is to reduce that residual risk to an
acceptable level. The USDA's strategy is to employ a risk management
framework based on the guidance of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) in its Series 800 of Special Publications. We
have established the ASOC to ensure operational security incidents are
quickly identified and promptly remediated.
One principal source of risk to USDA IT assets is the difficulty in
identifying and centrally reporting specific vulnerabilities which come
from the misconfiguration and/or out-of-date software installed on our
computers. Our Endpoint Protection solution readily identifies in near
real-time specific devices which are out of date and allows us to bring
these devices in compliance with the latest recommendations. The
solution provides an infrastructure that allows us to extend the
capabilities to accommodate future monitoring requirements.
An additional source of risk stems from the disparate environments
housing our application servers. These environments are spread
throughout the Nation, do not have uniform access controls (both
logical and physical), nor uniform environmental controls, and hinder
disaster recovery efforts. By consolidating our application servers
into a small number of Enterprise Data Centers we greatly reduce the
variation among environments and ensure that all USDA servers benefit
from common security controls.
Another risk comes from multiple points of entry into the USDA
network. USDA is following OMB guidelines and embracing the Trusted
Internet Connection model; still, USDA has a significant portion of its
workforce that is highly mobile, and connectivity for these workers
ranges the full spectrum of broadband technologies. By consolidating
the number and type of connections we limit the points of attack, and
can consolidate our monitoring and mitigation efforts.
A final risk that merits mentioning is our overseas operations.
Adequately securing overseas installations has been a continuing
challenge for the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). We are
mitigating this risk by moving all FAS overseas end user support into
the Department of State's OpenNet to take advantage of its existing
security controls and experience with this operating environment.
Simultaneously, we are consolidating their data operations into our
Enterprise Data Center, to provide a more robust security
infrastructure and operational model.
These examples highlight key operational risks to USDA.
Identifying, evaluating and tracking these risks in the light of new
guidance and internal reviews shall be the focus of our initiative to
develop a Governance, Risk Management and Compliance System. This
system will streamline the execution of USDA's risk management
framework to ensure we continue to reduce the residual risk to an
acceptable level.
e-government initiatives and lines of business
Question. USDA participates in 31 e-Government initiatives and
Lines of Business. To what extent are USDA customers using the e-
Government options open to them to inquire about USDA programs or to
make application for assistance? What sort of growth rate has there
been in such use among USDA customers over the last several years?
Answer. USDA participates in 31 e-Government initiatives and Lines
of Business (LoBs). Seven of these initiatives and LoBs are customer-
facing and provide measurable services that provide a means for the
public to inquire about USDA programs or make applications for
assistance. The remaining 24 initiatives and LOBs are internal facing
and/or support other Federal agencies. A brief description of the
services provided by each of the seven customer-facing initiatives is
provided immediately below for the record.
[The information follows:]
business gateway
By creating access to consolidated compliance information, Business
Gateway directly benefits USDA's ``customers'' (e.g., farm owners, food
industries, and agricultural chemical producers), all of whom are
subject to complex compliance requirements across multiple agencies.
The Business Gateway initiative comprises two Web sites:
Business.gov and Forms.gov. USDA posts agency forms on Forms.gov so
customers do not have to search multiple Web sites to find forms they
need to apply for government assistance. Links to program-related Web
pages are posted on Business.gov to allow customers to search for
information on government programs from a central location. Customers
find a synopsis of programs on Business.gov and are able to ``click-
through'' to USDA Web pages to find more information if they desire. A
summary of customer activity on these Web sites for fiscal years 2008
through the present is provided in the table below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of USDA Number of Number of
Fiscal year forms times forms customer click-
available were accessed throughs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................................................ 563 268,496 12,643
2009............................................................ 546 407,801 13,612
2010 (to date).................................................. 546 249,320 6,924
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-authentication
E-authentication is a public-private partnership that enables
citizens, businesses, and government employees to access online
government services using credentials issued by trusted third-parties,
both within and outside the government.
The e-authentication initiative provides a single, centralized
authentication service for Web-based applications across USDA, serving
USDA employees and customers as well as other Federal agencies. USDA's
e-authentication service represents USDA's implementation of the E-
Authentication Presidential Initiative.
The number of applications protected by USDA's e-authentication
service and the number of users who own an e-authentication credential
grows each year. USDA employees and customers use this service to
authenticate themselves by entering a user name and password. Once a
user is authenticated, he or she is authorized to access multiple
individual applications protected by the service. A summary of USDA's
use of the e-authentication service is provided in the table below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average number
Number of Web of active Average number of Average number of
Fiscal year applications users \1\ (per authentications \1\ authorizations \1\
protected month) (per month) (per month)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007................................... 256 -268,000 -1,648,000 -6,398,800
2008................................... 289 -310,000 -1,828,000 -7,096,800
2009................................... 335 -350,000 -2,129,000 -7,167,000
2010 (to date)......................... 365 -435,000 -2,143,000 -7,182,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes USDA employee and customer accounts.
e-rulemaking
USDA's 14 rule-making agencies completed migration to the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) on December 8, 2006. As a result, all
USDA Federal Register rules, proposed rules, and notices are available
for public comment on e-rulemaking's Regulations.gov. This initiative
increases the transparency of USDA's rulemaking process. A summary of
the rules and proposed rules made posted by USDA to Regulations.gov and
the number of comments received from the public in response from
calendar year 2007 to the present is provided in the table below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of Number of
rules and notice public
Calendar year proposed rules documents comments
posted by USDA posted by USDA received
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007............................................................ 300 843 7,133
2008............................................................ 317 868 13,272
2009............................................................ 339 915 28,986
2010 (to date).................................................. 115 332 24,791
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-training
AgLearn is USDA's implementation of the E-Training Presidential
Initiative. E-training and AgLearn provide a single, USDA-wide learning
management system that replaces seven legacy, agency-specific systems
and widespread manual tracking of training. USDA employees are the
primary users of AgLearn, but the resource is also available to select
customers and contractors. A summary of USDA's use of AgLearn is
provided in the table below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Number of different
active users Number of courses Total course
Fiscal year (employees and active courses completed by completions by
customers) available at least one all users
user
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................................ 131,247 11,216 3,614 \1\ 900,935
2009............................................ 134,957 14,423 5,684 778,564
2010 (to date) \2\.............................. 120,030 14,552 4,295 323,994
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Information Security Awareness and Privacy courses were separate. These were merged for 2009 and forward.
\2\ Through February 2010.
In addition to the metrics presented above, USDA also uses AgLearn
to deliver mandatory annual civil rights and cyber security training.
AgLearn is USDA's official system of record for processing Standard
Form (SF) 182, which allows USDA to track training requests and
associated costs. In an average month in fiscal year 2009, nearly 2,000
SF-182 forms were processed using AgLearn. This represents an increase
of 100 percent over fiscal year 2008.
govbenefits.gov
GovBenefits.gov provides a self-service tool for citizens to get
information about agency benefit programs, which reduces the need for
traditional channels such as call centers and mail. Citizens are able
to search for program descriptions on GovBenefits and follow links to
USDA Web pages where they can gather more information. The table below
provides a summary of the number of USDA benefits programs listed on
GovBenefits.gov, the number of times citizens viewed those benefits
descriptions, and the number of referrals to USDA Web pages that
resulted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of USDA
benefits Number of page Number of
Fiscal year programs on views referrals to
GovBenefits USDA Web pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................................................ 34 650,000 109,000
2009............................................................ 34 1,198,321 360,275
2010 (to date).................................................. 34 330,128 100,422
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grants.gov
Grants.gov provides a single location to publish grant (funding)
opportunities and application packages, and provides a single site for
the grants community to apply for grants using common forms, processes,
and systems. Since May 2006, USDA has offered the option to apply
electronically to 100 percent of its discretionary grants and
cooperative agreements to applicants through the Web site. The number
of unique grant opportunities posted by USDA varies by year, but
customer usage (submission of electronic applications) has increased
each year. The table below demonstrates this increase in usage from
fiscal year 2007 through the present.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
grant electronic
Fiscal year opportunities submissions
posted received
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007.................................... 144 6,614
2008.................................... 143 7,821
2009.................................... 136 10,786
2010 (to date).......................... 18 2,303
------------------------------------------------------------------------
recreation one-stop
Recreation One-Stop consolidates information about Federal
recreation areas from disparate sources (databases, Web sites, and
publications) by standardizing data and interfacing recreation-related
computer systems. The initiative provides information for planning
visits to Federal recreation sites and making campground/tour
reservations through a customer friendly recreation portal
(Recreation.gov).
The National Recreation Reservation Service gives the public a
customer-friendly recreation portal (www.recreation.gov) with
information for planning visits to thousands of Federal recreation
sites.
Information related to the public's use of the Recreation.gov Web
site was requested from the Managing Partner, Department of the
Interior. As of this response no statistic information has been
received from the Managing Partner.
gao greenbook report
Question. What has the Department done to comply with the
recommendations included in the October, 2009, GAO report?
Answer. The Greenbook Departmental Reimbursable Programs are
operated for the general benefit of the Department and its agencies.
The centralization of these programs avoids the duplication of efforts
and costs that would otherwise be incurred if each of the USDA agencies
tried to address these program needs on their own. As noted in USDA's
comments on the GAO report, the Department has already taken steps to
document and provide a more formal process for the annual budget
review. USDA issued formal budget requirements for the fiscal year 2011
Greenbook budget. The fiscal year 2011 Greenbook budget guidance
provided specific requirements for performance measures and analysis of
benefits of Greenbook activities. Based on the budget submissions, this
is an area that will be developed more fully to measure the value of
the individual activities to USDA and its agencies and Staff Offices.
In 2009 an interagency review board was formed. The Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Administration Management chaired the board.
Consisting of representatives appointed by seven USDA mission area
Under Secretaries, the board was charged with reviewing the fiscal year
2011 budgets for the Greenbook reimbursable activities. Board members
held a series of budget review meetings, in which reimbursable program
managers presented their budget requests and responded to questions
from board members. The board completed its review and submitted its
recommendations via the Chief Financial Officer to the Assistant
Secretary for Administration for use in making the final funding
decisions.
The Department plans to continue building on the progress that was
made in 2009 in developing the Greenbook budgets. While working with
its agencies, USDA will issue guidelines for decision-making related to
activities added to or removed from the Greenbook. These guidelines
will strengthen the oversight of the activities and require that
decisions made during the budget process are documented.
office of civil rights
Question. The Budget proposes to relegate the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to be absorbed within the Office
of Civil Rights, as was directed as part of last year's Department
reorganization. Given the high profile cases of civil rights that are
still pending and the stated intent of the Department to reverse any
history of discrimination at USDA, why did the USDA take this action
which will leave the perception that ``civil rights'' is now being
relegated to a position of lesser rank than the other Sub-Cabinet
posts?
Answer. As part of the reorganization of the staff offices and
administrative services of the Department, numerous functions have been
consolidated under the Assistant Secretary for Administration in an
effort to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights has been
realigned into Departmental Management in order to enhance civil rights
leadership to USDA employees, applicants and customers and to provide
more effective enforcement of civil rights programs. Including the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the new
Departmental Management will also improve necessary focus,
communication, and coordination with the new Office of Advocacy and
Outreach and the Office of Human Resource Management.
pending civil rights cases
Question. Please provide information regarding the status of
pending civil rights claims including the number of cases pending
during the past two fiscal years, the number that have been closed
during that period, and the number of new cases filed. Also, please
indicate the Department's ability to manage and reduce the number of
pending cases during fiscal year 2011.
Answer. During fiscal year 2008, 1,264 new civil rights program
claims were filed and 1,621 program claims were closed. As of September
30, 2008, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
(OASCR) had a pending inventory of 806 program claims. During fiscal
year 2009, 1,326 program claims were filed with OASCR and 1,079 program
claims were closed, for a final inventory of 1,053 program claims.
The Department has the ability to reduce the number of pending
cases during fiscal year 2011. The OASCR's Programs Directorate has
been staffed to manage the complaints that are less than 2 years old.
The Civil Rights Program Complaints Task Force manages the inventory of
complaints that are more than 2 years old. Under the reorganization, a
Program Adjudication Division was formed and staffed with seven
adjudicators; plans include hiring three more adjudicators. In
addition, the Program Investigation Division staff has been increased
from 5 to 15 investigators.
Question. Please distinguish the status and categorization of the
claims under Pigford II, Garcia, Keepseagle, and Love petitions.
Answer. While there are distinctions in the legal posture of the
large civil rights cases, the Department remains committed to resolving
each of these important cases. The Justice Department has reached out
to the plaintiffs in cases all of these cases regarding discussions
towards a meaningful settlement process. The Secretary has repeatedly
made clear that he is committed to resolving all of the large civil
rights cases quickly and fairly as he believes it is time to move past
this sad chapter of USDA's history so that USDA can focus on helping
all farmers be successful.
In Re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation (Pigford II) is a
collection of cases that were filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia by African American farmers or African
Americans who allegedly attempted to farm pursuant to section 14012 of
the 2008 farm bill. A settlement agreement was signed by the parties on
February 18, 2010. The plaintiffs will file a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement within the next 15-18 days. Also,
funding for $1.15 billion needs to be secured.
Marilyn Keepseagle, et al. v. Tom Vilsack, is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. To date, a class has been
certified for injunctive relief. Discovery has been completed and there
are several motions pending including a motion for class certification
for economic damages. The litigation has been stayed pending settlement
discussions between the parties. Guadalupe Garcia, et al. v. Tom
Vilsack, and Rosemary Love, et al. v. Tom Vilsack, are also pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Attempts to
certify these cases as class actions have been rejected by the courts
including a recent denial of a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme
Court. The district court has stayed litigation pending settlement
discussions between the parties.
Question. In addition to the claims that are part of the Pigford II
category, there are a number of similar claims by African American
farmers (the so-called ``non-Pigford'' claims) that are not part of the
negotiated settlement announced in February, 2010, but which still are
requested some form of relief. Does the Department intend to pursue
some settlement for these claims or support action by the Congress
should legislation to provide relief move forward, or is it the opinion
of the Department that these claims are without merit justifying
further relief or settlement?
Answer. The Department intends to address the ``non-Pigford''
claims. The Department has identified hundreds of potentially
meritorious claims involving actions for which the 2-year statute of
limitations (SOL) under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act has expired.
The Department has developed a plan to resolve the complaints should
Congress pass legislation extending the SOL.
departmental management reorganization
Question. Last year, USDA executed a Departmental reorganization
which, among other things, placed the Chief Information Officer (CIO)
and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) under the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Administration. Under current law, both the CIO and CFO
are required to report directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. How
have you determined that the reorganization is in compliance with
current law when it, in fact, relegated these two offices to positions
where they would not report directly to the Secretary?
Answer. I charged the USDA staff offices with ensuring that all
USDA mission areas are equipped to achieve optimal results in the most
efficient and effective manner possible. By optimizing and streamlining
the various operations, we can improve quality of services and
communications, streamline processes and improve transparency to our
customers. Ultimately, effective USDA management means effective
results for taxpayers and the people USDA serves.
Prior to reorganization the USDA Office of General Counsel (OGC)
reviewed the proposed reporting relationships. OGC stated that the
Chief Financial Officers Act only requires that the CFO ``report
directly to the head of the agency regarding financial matters, not for
all purposes.'' Accordingly, we believe that the requirements of the
CFO Act may be met, consistent with the proposed organizational chart,
as long as the CFO is given periodic opportunities to brief the
Secretary on internal controls, budget execution and financial systems
improvement projects. Similarly OGC stated that they find no legal
impediment in the Clinger-Cohen act to having the CIO report to the
Assistant Secretary for Administration, as long as he is given periodic
opportunities to brief the Secretary directly on information resources
management projects.
consolidation of gsa leased space
Question. In fiscal year 2010, $6,342,000 was provided as one-time
cost for consolidation of GSA leased space. Please provide the status
of this consolidation.
Answer. GSA awarded the lease on behalf of USDA on November 12,
2009. The new leased facility, Patriots Plaza III, is located at 355 E
St., SW, Washington, DC. This is a newly constructed building that
requires build out and furnishing before USDA takes occupancy.
With GSA as the lead USDA is currently completing its final review
of conceptual space plans and build out requirements. Final plans will
be complete by the end of the 2nd quarter, fiscal year 2010. Final
drawings for the space layout are expected to be complete by the 3rd
quarter, fiscal year 2010. Build out of the space is expected to
complete by the 2nd quarter, fiscal year 2011.
USDA plans to complete all moves to the new facility by the 3rd
quarter, fiscal year 2011. This meets the time lines originally
scheduled for the lease consolidation project.
global research alliance
Question. I understand the United States has been working with
other members of the Food and Agriculture Organization to coordinate
agricultural research through a so-called Global Research Alliance,
with a focus on the needs in developing countries struggling to become
food secure and to address the challenges of climate change. Please
provide the status on the creation of this international collaboration
on research, including the structure and governing principles of the
research effort. Please identify the countries involved and those that
have pledged financial support to carry out this initiative.
Answer. The Global Research Alliance (GRA) was proposed in
September 2009, by New Zealand and has been under development in
partnership with the United States and other countries since then. At
the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December
2009, 21 countries endorsed a joint Ministerial Statement on the
Establishment of a GRA on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases. This statement
notes the following points: Agriculture plays a vital role in food
security, poverty reduction and sustainable development; the
agricultural sector is particularly vulnerable to climate change
impacts and faces challenges in meeting the world's increasing food
demands; the agricultural sector contributes about 14 percent of global
greenhouse gas emissions but has opportunities to contribute to
emissions reductions and carbon sequestration; agriculture could reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and increase carbon sequestration by improving
agricultural systems' efficiency and productivity; and that underlining
the need for food security, the GRA is established to help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions intensity, increase soil carbon sequestration
and contribute to overall mitigation. The statement further asserts
that the GRA seeks to understand greenhouse gas emissions from
agriculture, improve measurement and estimation of greenhouse gas
emissions and carbon sequestration, develop ways to reduce emissions
and increase carbon sequestration, mitigate greenhouse gases while
sustaining or enhancing productivity and resilience as climate changes,
transfer new knowledge and technology to farmers and land managers
worldwide, and build scientific capacity in developing countries via
partnerships.
The structure and governing principles of the GRA are still not
established and are currently under discussion among the member
countries. On April 7-9, 2010, senior government officials representing
countries that have endorsed the Copenhagen Ministerial Statement will
meet in Wellington, New Zealand to create a roadmap to guide the first
12-month goals of this alliance, with specific objectives to agree on
structure and governance principles, agree on principles for the
functioning of scientific research groups, identify elements to go into
a draft charter, and agree on future meetings. A government team with
representatives from various USDA agencies is currently developing the
U.S. position on issues to be discussed at the April meeting in New
Zealand.
Countries that have endorsed the creation of the GRA are:
Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, France,
Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, and Vietnam. Canada, New
Zealand, and the United States have pledged financial support.
legislative authority for administrative data pilot project
Question. Does ERS currently have the legislative authority to
undertake the proposed Administrative Data Pilot projects, in lieu of
the legal obstacles that currently exist?
Answer. Yes, ERS has the legislative authority to undertake the
proposed Administrative Data Pilot project. As a principal statistical
Agency, ERS' mission includes the collection and analysis of a variety
of data for statistical purposes. This pilot project is part of a
cross-cutting initiative sponsored and developed by the Interagency
Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP). [The ICSP is chaired by OMB's
Chief Statistician and has the heads of the 13 principal statistical
agencies as its members. The ICSP serves as an opportunity for
information exchange between agencies and as a mechanism for agencies
to participate in shared activities.]
The other lead agencies, with whom ERS has a tradition of
partnering, are the U.S. Bureau of the Census (Census) and the National
Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), who have explicit authorities to
acquire and use administrative records for statistical purposes. ERS'
contribution to this proposed partnership includes subject matter
expertise, a strong connection to the research community whose
expertise we likely will want to employ, and a strong connection to
USDA policy agencies that would benefit from the substantive results of
the project.
Question. Has ERS worked with other government agencies in
preparation for the Administrative Data Pilot Projects to ensure, that
if funded, there will be appropriate participation to determine their
effectiveness?
Answer. This pilot is part of a cross-cutting initiative sponsored
and developed by the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP).
ERS, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), and Census will
collaborate on the initiative. Census will develop the infrastructure
for ERS to study the health and nutrition outcomes for low-income
households participating in food assistance programs and for NCHS to
examine the relationships between health, and Medicare and Medicaid
enrollments. ERS is already collaborating with NCHS and the Census on
other data-linkage activities.
Question. Is it anticipated that the main Federal agencies
participating in the Administrative Data Pilot Projects will be USDA
agencies? What other main Departments and Agencies are expected to
participate?
Answer. Through collaboration with the Interagency Council on
Statistical Policy (ICSP), of which the National Agricultural
Statistical Service is also a member, the project will benefit the
entire Federal statistical system by addressing some long-standing
barriers to greater incorporation of administrative data in statistical
programs. Another USDA agency that will likely participate in the
proposed project is the Food and Nutrition Service, which administers
USDA's domestic nutrition assistance programs and through which
administrative data would be solicited.
funding for the statistical community of practice (scop) initiative
Question. How was the funding request level determined for the
Statistical Community of Practice (SCOP) proposal?
Answer. SCOP is one of two cross-cutting initiatives in the
President's fiscal year 2011 budget to support the Federal statistical
system. These costs were based upon current costs for similar
activities that are ongoing in individual statistical agencies. The
funding request represents the combined costs of staffing a SCOP
project management office at ERS that will be responsible for providing
statistical system-wide support to build a platform to pilot cloud
access to publicly available data, acquire software for interagency
group purchases, support and manage the individual SCOP projects, and
manage and maintain FEDSTATS, the dissemination platform for SCOP. Each
individual SCOP project will be led by a representative from one of the
Federal statistical agencies and staffed by representatives from other
interested agencies. Those agencies will contribute financially if
there are costs specific to the project (e.g., the purchase of
software). However, there will be the need for support for background
research and in some cases for the evaluation of existing software and
the adaptation or development of new software to meet the needs of
specific aspects of data collection, processing, and/or dissemination.
The goal is to identify and/or develop Government-owned solutions that
can be shared across the Federal statistical system, resulting in cost
savings, process efficiencies and improvements across the survey life
cycle.
Question. Since the SCOP will be voluntary and self-selected, how
will ERS recruit participants?
Answer. Since the initiative is the product of work sponsored by
the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP), the initial
participants will come from that community. The ICSP is chaired by
OMB's Chief Statistician and includes the heads of 13 principal
statistical agencies. The ICSP sponsors information exchange among the
agencies and serves as a mechanism for the agencies to participate in
shared activities. Members of the SCOP task force have met several
times during the development of SCOP to brief the ICSP members on
progress, to receive feedback from them, and to request formal
participation from interested agencies. The ICSP is expected to serve
as the Governing Board for SCOP. A number of the specific projects
proposed for SCOP were a direct result of a strategic planning activity
conducted by the ICSP. In addition, statistical data quality expertise
will be channeled through SCOP to support the Data.gov effort within
OMB. All statistical agencies will share in the benefits of SCOP
project deliverables, e.g., analytical software tools.
Question. Are there other statistical agencies within the
government participating in this effort? If so, is ERS the lead agency?
Answer. Under the guidance of the Interagency Council on
Statistical Policy (ICSP), the ERS CIO has been working with an
interagency task force that includes representatives from the OMB
Statistical and Science Policy Office and 9 of the 12 other principal
Federal statistical agencies. These include the Bureau of Economic
Analysis, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the Census Bureau, the Energy Information Administration,
the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the National Center for Health
Statistics (NCHS), and the Statistics of Income Division at IRS. The
ERS CIO is the project lead; as such he has also met with senior staff
in the OMB E-gov program to ensure that the required documentation is
available for SCOP to acquire E-gov recognition as a recognized Line of
Business. Five statistical agencies have officially signed on to be
active participants in SCOP (Census, ERS, NASS, NCES and NCHS); based
on feedback from other agencies, we fully expect the list to grow.
duration of the national household food purchase and acquisition survey
Question. How long is it anticipated that the National Household
Food Purchase and Acquisition Survey will take to complete?
Answer. The National Household Food Purchase and Acquisition Survey
(FoodAPS) is being planned and executed over several years. The
contract to carry out a pilot survey was awarded in September 2009. A
full scale survey would be carried out over fiscal year 2011 and 2012.
Resultant data will be used to understand the determinants of food
purchases and acquisitions. The proposed Community Access to Local
Foods Initiative will build on this data collection effort to fund data
development and to provide staff to carry out research and evaluation
using the data. The initiative supports research to understand how the
local food environment influences acquisitions of healthy food in low-
income households. It will provide the baseline for monitoring the
outcomes of policies and programs such as the Healthy Food Financing
Initiative.
Question. Is this survey anticipated to be a one-time event, or
something that will be continually updated?
Answer. The FoodAPS survey will be a recurring data investment.
Currently, the Federal Statistical Agencies do not collect detailed
price and quantity for food purchases and acquisitions. This survey is
designed to address that gap. The initiative will also support on-going
research on Community Access.
Question. Will the funding request fully fund the survey, or will
there be additional dollars required in future years?
Answer. The initiative should not require increased levels of
annual funding over the foreseeable future.
national agricultural statistics service
Question. Will the NASS annual county estimates program funding
increase be used at all to fund third-party work, for example, to
continue State or local cooperative agreements?
Answer. A vast majority of the funding will be used to fully
implement a probability based survey design, for improved data
collection follow-up. This data collection is conducted through an
agreement with the National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture (NASDA). NASDA employs over 3,000 local interviewers who
collect virtually all of the data used for NASS estimates.
Question. How long will it take NASS to develop the rotational
organic agriculture data series, if funding is provided?
Answer. The requested funding would allow NASS to implement a 3-
year rotational organic agriculture data series. Planning and
preparation of the survey would take place the first year; the data
would be collected in the second year; and analysis and publication
would be done in the third year.
Question. How much funding at NASS is currently being used to
gather data on organic agriculture?
Answer. The 2008 farm bill provided $1 million in mandatory
funding, and provided the basis for the initial 2008 Organic Production
Survey, which was conducted in fiscal year 2009. An additional $250,000
was appropriated in fiscal year 2010 to aid in completing analysis and
publication of this new data series. The additional request in fiscal
year 2011 will provide a total of $750,000 annually for organic
agriculture statistics and allow NASS to conduct an organic agriculture
survey on a 3-year cycle.
Question. If the TOTAL survey has been inactive since 1998, but
funds have remained in the budget to fund it, as evidenced by their
proposed elimination this year, what has NASS been doing with these
funds?
Answer. The TOTAL survey is funded under the Census of Agriculture.
This is a cyclical funding source which varies by year and only
includes the necessary appropriations to complete the cyclical
activities for that fiscal year. The cyclical activities include such
items as the planning, conducting, analysis, and summary of the
quinquennial Census of Agriculture and associated follow-on studies.
The $4.0 million reduction in fiscal year 2011 are the funds that would
have been used to conduct the TOTAL survey.
Question. What effect will the elimination of any activities
described above have on NASS?
Answer. A comprehensive review was completed to determine the
priority of each survey within the overall existing program. Eliminated
programs were identified as lower priority items which could offset
requested funding in support of higher priority administration goals.
congressionally directed spending
Question. Please provide a list of all congressionally directed
spending in fiscal year 2010, including gross to location and net to
location. Please provide detailed information on how any funding beyond
a 10 percent difference was used, by project.
Answer. There are no funding differences beyond 10 percent. The
information is submitted for the record.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressionally directed project Gross amount NTL amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal Vaccines, Greenport, NY.......... $1,518,000 $1,366,200
Aquaculture Fisheries Center, Stuttgart, 519,000 467,100
AR.....................................
Aquaculture Initiatives, Harbor Branch 1,597,000 1,437,300
Oceanographic Institute, Stuttgart, AR.
Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research 1,500,000 1,350,000
Laboratory, Manhattan, KS..............
Biomass Crop Production, Brookings, SD.. 1,250,000 1,125,000
Biomedical Materials in Plants, 1,700,000 1,530,000
Beltsville, MD.........................
Bioremediation Research, Beltsville, MD. 111,000 99,900
Biotechnology Research and Development 3,500,000 3,150,000
Center, Headquarters...................
Catfish Genome, Auburn, AL.............. 819,000 737,100
Center for Agroforestry, Booneville, AR. 660,000 594,000
Cereal Disease, St. Paul, MN............ 290,000 261,000
Computer Vision Engineer, Kearneysville, 400,000 360,000
WV.....................................
Crop Production and Food Processing, 786,000 707,400
Peoria, IL.............................
Dairy Forage Research Center, Madison, 2,500,000 2,250,000
WI.....................................
Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research 1,805,000 1,624,500
Center, Booneville, AR.................
Diet Nutrition and Obesity Research, New 623,000 560,700
Orleans, LA............................
Endophyte Research, Booneville, AR...... 994,000 894,600
Forage Crop Stress Tolerance and Virus 200,000 180,000
Disease Management, Prosser, WA........
Formosan Subterranean Termites Research, 3,490,000 3,217,590
New Orleans, LA........................
Foundry Sand By-Products Utilization, 638,000 574,200
Beltsville, MD.........................
Human Nutrition Research, Boston, MA.... 350,000 315,000
Human Nutrition Research, Houston, TX... 300,000 270,000
Improved Crop Production Practices, 1,293,000 1,163,700
Auburn, AL.............................
Livestock-Crop Rotation Management, 349,000 314,100
University Park, PA....................
Lyme Disease, 4 Poster Project, 700,000 630,000
Headquarters...........................
Medicinal and Bioactive Crops, 111,000 99,900
Washington, DC.........................
Mosquito Trapping Research/West Nile 1,454,000 1,308,600
Virus, Gainesville, FL.................
National Bio and Agro Defense Facility, 1,500,000 1,350,000
Manhattan, KS..........................
National Center for Agricultural Law, 654,000 588,600
Beltsville, MD (NAL)...................
National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot 360,000 324,000
Plant, Headquarters....................
North Carolina Human Nutrition Center, 1,000,000 900,000
Headquarters...........................
Northern Great Plains Research 543,000 488,700
Laboratory, Mandan, ND.................
Northwest Center for Small Fruits, 275,000 247,500
Headquarters...........................
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research 700,000 630,000
Center Staffing, Hilo, HI..............
Phytoestrogen Research, New Orleans, LA. 1,750,000 1,575,000
Potato Diseases, Beltsville, MD......... 61,000 54,900
Poultry Diseases, Beltsville, MD........ 408,000 367,200
Seismic & Acoustic Technologies in Soils 332,000 298,800
Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford, MS...
Sorghum Research, Little Rock, AR....... 135,000 121,500
Soybean Genomics, St. Paul, MN.......... 200,000 180,000
Subtropical Beef Germplasm, Brooksville, 1,033,000 929,700
FL.....................................
Termite Species in Hawaii, New Orleans, 200,000 180,000
LA.....................................
Tropical Aquaculture Feeds, Oceanic 1,438,000 1,294,200
Institute, Hilo, HI....................
Water Management Research Laboratory, 340,000 306,000
Brawley, CA............................
Water Use Reduction, Dawson, GA......... 1,200,000 1,080,000
Wild Rice, St. Paul, MN................. 303,000 272,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------
greenbook charges
Question. Please provide a list of all Greenbook charges assessed
to ARS during fiscal years 2009 and 2010. From where did the funding
come to pay for these charges?
Answer. These costs are funded from a 10 percent indirect cost
assessment to cover administrative and program management costs
associated with conducting nationwide research programs and funds set
aside from lapsed salaries within the agency. The final determination
of the Greenbook charges for fiscal year 2010 has not been completed.
The fiscal year 2009 information is submitted for the record.
[The information follows:]
ARS FISCAL YEAR 2009 GREENBOOK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency programs Amount funded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Postal Service Mail Postal Code P005............... $255,000
Unemployment Compensation \1\........................... 427,000
Workers Compensation \1\................................ 3,592,506
Transit Subsidy......................................... 430,204
National Archives Records System........................ 78,521
GSA HSPD-12 Lincpass Maintenance........................ 142,088
OPM Federal Employment and Administrative Law Judges 41,793
Service................................................
Consolidated Fed Funds Report and Fed Audit 11,520
Clearinghouse..........................................
Small Business Certification............................ 1,505
FEMA Emergency Preparedness............................. 19,087
Government-wide Council Activities...................... 43,137
Flexible Spending Accounts FSAFEDS...................... 158,599
E-Gov Initiatives....................................... 585,438
USDA Tribal Liaison..................................... 915
Advisory Committee Liaison Services..................... 15,919
Faith-Based Initiatives & Neighborhood Partnerships..... 22,126
Hispanic-Serving Institutions National Program.......... 118,168
1890 USDA Initiatives................................... 198,721
USDA 1994 Program....................................... 47,529
Diversity Council....................................... 42,039
Visitors Center......................................... 21,962
Honor Awards............................................ 6,556
TARGET Center........................................... 75,965
Drug Testing Program.................................... 1,900
Sign Language Interpreter Services...................... 18,930
Sign Language Interpreter Agency Specific Service \1\... 43,616
Emergency Operations Center............................. 180,693
Labor and Employee Relations Case Tracking and Reporting 5,900
System.................................................
Continuity of Operations Planning....................... 149,144
Personnel and Document Security......................... 143,347
Federal Biobased Products Preferred Procurement Program. 28,681
Radiation Safety \1\.................................... 624,704
Retirement Processor Web Application.................... 27,698
Preauthorized Funding................................... 213,062
Financial Management Improvement Initiative............. 250,660
E-Gov Initiatives--HSPD12............................... 1,047,528
E-Gov Initiatives--Content Management................... 75,198
Enterprise Network Messaging............................ 345,827
USDA Enterprise Contingency Planning Program............ 44,116
USDA IT Infrastructure Security......................... 150,396
E-Gov Enablers-Cyber Security........................... 79,860
---------------
Total............................................. 9,767,558
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cost centers assessed based on actual usage.
ars administrative costs
Question. Has ARS considered the possibility of including a general
fund to pay for all administrative costs and estimated Greenbook
charges? If not, what concerns would ARS have with such a proposal?
Answer. No, ARS has not considered the possibility of including a
general fund for all administrative and program management costs and
estimated Greenbook and Working Capital charges. ARS assesses 10
percent on any program increases appropriated to the agency to finance
administrative and program management costs associated with conducting
nationwide research programs. This way of budgeting accounts for the
full cost of running the program, ensuring transparency and
accountability. In addition to diminishing full cost account and
transparency, a centralized administrative expenses account may not
accurately reflect the cost of administering the program. Costs
associated with the Greenbook and Working Capital Fund are not
finalized until after the beginning of the fiscal year.
classical plant breeding
Question. What level of ARS funding is used for classical plant
breeding research?
Answer. The ARS funding for classical plant breeding research for
fiscal year 2010 is $74,193,800.
organic research
Question. What level of ARS funding is used for organic research?
Answer. In fiscal year 2010, ARS invested $17,234,600 in research
that directly addresses organic agriculture problems. The ARS
investment in research that does not have specific organic agriculture
research objectives but which indirectly benefits the organic industry
is $40,951,300.
regional biofuels feedstocks research
Question. What are the proposed locations of the Regional Biofuels
Feedstocks Research and Demonstration Centers? How were those locations
chosen?
Answer. The five proposed Regional Biomass Research and Development
Centers will be research networks within the following five agro-eco
regions:
Southeast--spans the Southern Coastal Plains and Piedmont areas
(includes FL, GA, SC, AL, MS, LA, AR, NC, TN, KY, eastern TX, and HI);
Central-Eastern--covers the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest and eastern Great
Plaines (includes NE, ND, SD, KS, OK, MN, IA, MO, WI, IL, MI, IN, OH,
KY, TN, PA, DE, MD, and VA);
Northern-Eastern--spans the Northern Coastal Plains (includes MN,
WI, MI, NY, VT, NH, ME, MA, CT, RI, PA, OH, DE, MD, and WV);
Western--spans the relatively dry Southwest and Western States (NM,
AZ, CA, NV, UT, CO, MT, WY, ID, and western TX);
Northwestern--encompasses the Northwest and northern Great Plaines
(includes WA, OR, ID, MT, eastern CO, WY, CA, AK, and western ND and
SD).
Each Regional Center will be composed of a network of ARS and
Forest Service laboratories, scientists, and their partners within that
region. Each of the centers will be organized in a ``hub'' and
``spoke'' fashion with at least one ``hub'' and many ``spokes'', all of
which contribute to the Regional Center's performance. ``Hubs''--single
laboratories within Regional Centers will help to coordinate the
Center's work and relationships so as to maximize effectiveness and
prevent duplication of efforts. These hubs were chosen based on the
expertise each possesses for regionally adapted bioenergy feedstocks
and the kinds of agricultural production systems suited to that region.
world food prize
Question. What amount of funding is in ARS's base budget for the
World Food Prize? What reasoning is provided for ARS being the USDA
lead agency to support this Foundation?
Specifically, how was this amount determined and for what will it
be used? Since the World Food Prize is related to international food
security, do you believe it would be better suited within the Foreign
Agricultural Service?
Answer. Presently, there are no funds in the ARS base budget to
support the World Food Prize Foundation (WFP). Conference Report 109-
255, accompanying the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for fiscal
year 2006, directed the Secretary to report ways in which the
Department can participate in support of WFP and appropriated $350,000
for such efforts. In response to the directive, the Secretary
designated ARS to support and partner with WFP and transferred the
$350,000 appropriated for these efforts to ARS. No funding was
appropriated in subsequent years for support of WFP.
The fiscal year 2011 budget, request for $750,000 builds upon the
established relationship with ARS and the World Food Prize Foundation
to relieve world hunger. The proposed funding will be used to support
activities such as travel costs for distinguished participants;
preparation of publications, brochures, and other materials;
participation of students and teachers in the Youth Institute; and
related staff and administrative support costs.
agriculture and food research initiative
Question. Please provide a specific list of all research
initiatives and funding goals for those initiatives proposed within the
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), including those within
base funding.
Answer. The information is submitted for the record.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2011
Initiative President's
budget
proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Childhood Obesity Prevention plus Improving National $74,908,900
Nutrition and Health...................................
Sustainable Bioenergy................................... 73,272,600
Global Food Security.................................... 28,309,040
Food Safety............................................. 39,963,000
Global Climate Change................................... 104,909,000
Foundational Programs Listed Below:
Plant Health and Production and Plant Products-- 35,000,000
Including Colony Collapse Disorder of Honey Bees..
Animal Health and Production and Animal Products-- 30,000,000
Animal Health and Production.......................
Food Safety, Nutrition, and Health.................. 6,000,000
Renewable Energy, Natural Resources, and Environment 11,482,460
Agriculture Systems and Technology.................. 10,000,000
Agriculture Economics and Rural Communities-- 15,000,000
Economics of Markets and Agricultural Prosperity
for Small and Medium-sized Farms...................
---------------
Total........................................... 428,845,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Is there any assurance that research programs that have
been eliminated in the budget, with the justification that they will be
included in the proposed AFRI increase, will be protected at the levels
they currently receive?
Answer. While the specific section 406 funding mechanism and
programs are not part of the 2011 budget request, AFRI will continue to
emphasize food safety and climate change (include water issues). In
addition, research and education supporting organic agriculture is
conducted through a mandatory funded grants program, and expanded
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education activities. I will have
NIFA provide additional details for the record.
[The information follows:]
Water issues will be addressed in multiple Challenge Area programs.
Impacts on water use, distribution, quality and quantity will be
addressed in the Bioenergy, Global Climate Change, and Global Food
Security integrated and research program. Especially important is the
usage of water for the expanded bioenergy crop production and continued
availability of high quality water for food production. Basic research
will continue through the Agricultural Water Science Foundation program
also. The fiscal year 2010 funding for Water Quality was $12,649,000.
The AFRI programs for the three Challenge Areas will increase funding
by over $96 million.
The AFRI Food Safety Challenge Area Program will continue to
provide funding for research, education, and extension efforts to
improve the safety of the U.S. food supply through new and improved
rapid detection methods, epidemiological studies, and improved food
harvesting and processing technologies. Several basic research programs
will address issues related to plant diseases and pathogen
interactions, animal health, and the use of nanotechnology use to
ensure food safety. The Food Safety Area will increase funding by
$19,963,560. The section 406 Food Safety funding in fiscal year 2010
was $14,596,000.
The application of Integrated Pest Management will be a focus in
the Global Food Security Challenge programs looking at a system
approach in pest management and expand to potential partnerships with
other agencies addressing appropriate national and international
application of IPM principles and practices. Section 406 related IPM
funding for fiscal year 2010 was $12,903,000. Foundational Pest and
Beneficial Insects in Plant Systems Foundation program funding is at $6
million and the Global Food Security Challenge IPM program area is at
$5 million and an increase in the Global Food Security Challenge area
of over $13 million.
Organic agricultural production and management systems have been
and will continue to be supported through many of the AFRI programs.
Basic research through the Small and Medium-Sized Farms and Rural
Communities and Economics of markets and Development programs can
support research on the expansion of organic agriculture with a focus
related to land use and economics of rural communities. The Global Food
Security Challenge Programs can support integrated efforts both
nationally and related to international food security issues. Since
many organic producers market locally, regional food security efforts
may be researched to address ``food deserts''. The Nutrition and Health
Challenge programs address behavioral factors that can address
providing highly nutritious food especially to children and could
include improvements in nutritional value in organic crops. Section 406
Organic Transition Program funding in fiscal year 2010 was $5 million.
Potential related funds from AFRI from the two Foundational Programs
are $10 million and $5 million from the Global Food Security Challenge
Program.
secondary education, 2-year postsecondary education, and agriculture in
the k-12 classroom
Question. What level of funding requests was received by USDA for
Secondary Education, 2-Year Postsecondary Education, and Agriculture in
the K-12 Classroom (SPECA) grants in fiscal year 2009 and 2010?
Answer. USDA received requests for Secondary Education, 2-Year
Postsecondary Education, and Agriculture in the K-12 Classroom (SPECA)
grants totaling $2,986,906 in fiscal year 2009 and $2,434,403 in fiscal
year 2010.
higher education institution challenges grants
Question. What level of funding requests was received by USDA for
Higher Education Institution Challenges Grants in fiscal year 2009 and
2010?
Answer. USDA received requests for Higher Education Institution
Challenge grants totaling $15,205,883 in fiscal year 2009 and
$20,600,489 in fiscal year 2010.
food emergency response network (fern)
Question. The FSIS budget proposes to decrease funding for FERN
laboratories, but the FDA budget restates the importance of these
laboratories. Did FSIS consult with FDA in making this budget decision,
and how do the two agencies work together on this initiative?
Answer. No, the Department did not consult with FDA prior to making
this budget decision. However, we continue to work closely with FDA to
further develop and manage FERN. FSIS has primary responsibility for
funding and overseeing Cooperative Agreements with non-Federal
laboratories that assist FERN in building surge capacity for responding
to microbiological foodborne emergencies, while FDA supports
Cooperative Agreement activities related to chemical and radiological
emergencies. Joint activities include laboratory training, proficiency
testing, surveillance testing, method validation studies, and
coordination of responses to exercises and events. We have made
considerable investment in the States in building capacity to respond
to foodborne emergencies through its Cooperative Agreements. The level
proposed for Cooperative Agreements in fiscal year 2011 is the same as
for fiscal year 2009.
For the fiscal year 2011 President's budget, the administration is
proposing to redirect FSIS funding from FERN in order to offset costs
to support one of the key findings of the President's Food Safety
Working Group which is to develop more timely estimates of pathogen
prevalence. This $10 million increase above the fiscal year 2010 level
will allow FSIS to improve surveillance of foodborne pathogens of
human-health concern in FSIS-regulated products through significant
expansion of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point regulatory
sampling, and conducting an additional traditional baseline study.
Accurate, timely prevalence estimates for pathogens are critical for
evaluation of existing prevention policies and the development of new
regulatory strategies.
interstate shipment program
Question. Please provide an update on the status of the FSIS State
Meat Inspection rule.
Answer. The Department is working to implement the farm bill
provision to allow the interstate shipment of meat and poultry products
for certain small and very small establishments. The proposed rule was
published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2009.
The Department held two public teleconference meetings on the
proposed regulations, on October 27 and November 5, 2009, and accepted
public comments on the proposed rule through December 16, 2009. We are
taking into consideration these public comments and will then move
forward with the final rule.
fsis salaries and expenses
Question. Will the budget adequately fund all FSIS pay costs,
including required within grade increases, benefits, and other required
salary increases? If not, what amount is necessary to ensure that the
salaries of FSIS employees are fully covered?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget fully funds FSIS
salary needs including funding for continuation of inspection
operations without interruption. I am committed to ensuring that we
have the staffing, the training, the lab support, oversight and other
resources that are necessary to ensure the safety of the food supply.
humane slaughter
Question. The Committee has received a proposal to redirect funding
previously set aside for Humane Animal Tracking in order to fund a
position whose sole responsibility will be to oversee FSIS efforts on
enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. Has FSIS considered
this and what would the cost of such a position be? Further, the
Committee has received a request to fund a specific team of FSIS
employees whose job description would require them to perform
undercover investigations of slaughter facilities to ensure compliance
with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. Again, is this something FSIS
has considered, and what would the approximate cost be?
Answer. The Department has funded a position whose primary
responsibility will be to oversee FSIS efforts on enforcement of the
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. FSIS used the additional $2 million
provided in fiscal year 2009 for 24 additional positions to further
boost its humane handling oversight and verification inspection
activities. One of these positions is a headquarters-based Humane
Handling Coordinator, whose primary responsibility will be to provide
consistent oversight of field-level humane handling activities. The
other 23 positions--5 PHVs, 1 Supervisory Consumer Safety Inspector, 13
Consumer Safety Inspectors, and 4 Food Inspectors--were assigned to
specific plants where the employee will conduct on-line or off-line
activities. As of March 14, 2010, 22 of these positions had been
filled, including the Humane Handling Coordinator position, and 2 were
still in the hiring process.
We've recently become aware of the suggestion for an undercover
investigative team and have not yet estimated the cost for such a team.
Since the events at the Hallmark/Westland establishment in 2008, FSIS
has made numerous efforts to strengthen and improve its verification
and enforcement related to the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. FSIS
conducted covert humane slaughter surveillance operations in nine
establishments across the United States within 4 months of the Humane
Society's Hallmark/Westland video release and determined that all of
these establishments were in compliance. FSIS can conduct covert
surveillance operations under existing surveillance and investigation
allocations. Moreover, FSIS instructed PHVs and other inspection
program personnel to vary from day-to-day the time during their tour of
duty that they perform their activities to verify that animals are
treated humanely. In April 2009, FSIS issued Notice 21-09, which
reminded inspection program personnel to conduct humane handling
activities randomly throughout their shift.
public health data communication infrastructure
Question. Is the funding requested for the Public Health Data
Communication Infrastructure Funding one-time funding, or will
additional investments be required in immediate outyears?
Answer. Reliable connectivity to information systems and
applications is critical to the accomplishment of FSIS' inspection,
investigative, and food defense responsibilities. The backbone that
underpins these systems and applications must be expanded to support
the increased requirements of PHIS in both the installed base and for
additional users. Provision of additional telecommunications support
will subsume $2.3 million of the $8.0 million requested. These are on-
going costs.
In addition, the Agency will spend an additional $5.7 million to
support the on-going costs for the migration to and operation of the
Department's two Enterprise Data Centers (EDCs). These costs will
increase as PHIS is brought on-line. Front-line personnel will benefit
from the increase in the number of centralized mission critical
applications available under the EDCs. Interoperability of Agency
systems with other governmental and non-governmental systems will also
increase demand for EDC-hosted applications, which will in turn,
increase the Agency's costs for support of those systems. While the
Agency has received additional funding for the EDCs in fiscal year 2010
and 2011, the Agency's contribution to the overall EDC support will
rise as we move from the implementation to the maintenance and
operations phase with increased user demand. The requested funds are
therefore intended to be a baseline increase.
The third major element is to increase the number of FSIS employees
with daily access to computers. The request includes $5 million to
purchase 3,600 computers, as part of a longer-term plan to move towards
one-computer per employee. Much of the agency's frontline workforce is
highly mobile, making it difficult to share computers across multiple
sites when access to real-time applications are required. Likewise, the
agency has not had the systematic ability to turnover computers at the
work sites of its existing computer users, to enhance workforce
productivity. Shortening technology lifecycles and the increasing
complexity of FSIS applications has led to an agency-wide computer
strategy that includes both increasing the installed base and
refreshing the computers to the existing users. The requested funds are
therefore intended to be a baseline increase to support the agency's
over 10,000 employees and partners.
cost sharing
Question. Many APHIS programs ensure containment, reduction, and
elimination of animal and plant pests and diseases that could do huge
harm to production agriculture in the United States. Typically, these
program resources reflect cost sharing between APHIS and program
collaborators (generally States and tribes). However, a consistent
theme in this budget is the proposed reduction in Federal contributions
to program costs, forcing States and tribes to assume larger burdens.
Mr. Secretary, does this decision reflect conversations and
agreements you have reached with your partners?
Will your collaborators have adequate time to adjust their budgets
to maintain needed levels of program performance?
In those States already facing severe budget shortfalls, will you
provide this subcommittee assurance that needed levels of program
services will continue?
Answer. While there may not have been agreement to the level of
contributions for each pest and disease program, it is reasonable to
expect all parties to contribute some level of resources towards these
cooperative programs that, in most cases, have been in place for
several years.
The Agency's budget request is presented more than 6 months in
advance of when it will become effective, which allows time for program
partners to develop their spending plans in the coming year. The Agency
will continue to conduct the pest and disease programs based on the
total available resources and on the highest priorities for the
program.
use of antibiotics
Question. There continues to be vocal debate on the non-therapeutic
use of antibiotics in the livestock sector. Some contend that the
practice places human health at risk due to a concern that the
consumption of related food products results in antibiotic resistance
to certain strains of bacteria. On the other hand, it is argued that
the use of antibiotics in livestock is so minimal that there is no such
effect.
What is the current science in regard to this issue?
Is there any evidence that the use of antibiotics for livestock has
any influence on human health through food products from such animals?
Since there is obviously some effect in the use of antibiotics (or
else the industry would not use them in the first place) is it not
logical to assume that there is some residual effect in humans? If not,
what is being done to educate consumers that the use of antibiotics
poses no threat to human health?
Answer. Current science is largely assessing the effect of
antimicrobial use and the antibiotic resistance, also known as
antimicrobial resistance or drug resistance. APHIS and ARS, FDA, and
CDC continue to work collaboratively on antimicrobial issues. The
question of whether antibiotic use in animals has any effect on human
health requires the consideration of the organism involved, the
antibiotic in question, and various other mitigating factors in food
production. The FDA continues to do risk assessments for various
antibiotics used in animals and their potential to harm human health.
In some cases the FDA has found that certain uses of antibiotics result
in unacceptable increased risks to human health and have withdrawn
approvals for specific antibiotic uses. In other cases the risk
assessment has indicated that there is not an increased risk associated
with the use of specific antibiotics in certain animals.
Antibiotics are used in animals for purposes of treatment of
clinical disease, disease prevention and growth promotion. Concern for
antibiotic resistance relative to use of antibiotics in animals is
primarily related to the transmission of organisms from animals to
people, especially through food. In some cases these organisms may
harbor genes that make them resistant to the effects of certain
antibiotics. When these resistance genes occur and people require
treatment for that infection, they may not respond optimally to
treatment.
APHIS' focus for the antibiotic use and resistance issue has been
to survey livestock populations to estimate the types and levels of use
for various commodities/animals and to evaluate the prevalence of
resistance. APHIS reports on findings from the on-farm sampling through
reports and in peer reviewed publications in the professional
literature. The Web site address to access the reports is http://
www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/ncahs/nahms/. These reports are also made
available to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency
responsible for the approval process of antibiotic use in animals.
Information regarding the use of antibiotics in animals is available to
the public on the following FDA Web site: http://www.fda.gov/
AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AntimicrobialResistance
farm loans
Question. Mr. Secretary, in the face of deteriorating credit
conditions for rural farmers this Committee increased Farm Service
Agency ownership and operating loan levels for fiscal year 2010. Now it
appears even those increased levels will not be sufficient to meet
fiscal year 2010 credit demand. Adequate credit is essential to help
rural areas recover from this deep recession. But, this budget cuts
farm loan program levels for fiscal year 2011.
What evidence do you have that this request will be sufficient to
meet the credit needs for agricultural producers?
Answer. At the time the fiscal year 2011 budget was being
formulated, economic forecasts indicated that farm prices would rebound
in fiscal year 2010 and agriculture would continue to be somewhat
insulated from the credit crisis faced primarily by the non-agriculture
sectors of our economy. Based on these assumptions--and given that 2009
funding was augmented by $173 million of stimulus funds and $810
million of supplemental funds provided adequate funding to satisfy a
large increase in credit applications for fiscal year 2009--a
determination was made that fiscal year 2009 obligation levels would be
sufficient for fiscal year 2010 and subsequently for fiscal year 2011.
We will continue to monitor the agricultural credit markets and,
pursuant to the 2010 Conference Report, keep the Committee informed of
the farm credit needs.
Question. What tools do you have to increase program levels during
the year if your estimates for fiscal year 2011 turn out to be low?
Answer. The last several appropriations acts included language that
allowed FSA to make adjustments to program levels by moving funds from
program areas with less demand to those with greater demand, with
Committee consent. This flexibility proved useful in the past when
demand changed significantly from forecasts, which are made many months
in advance. The Department also has authority to interchange up to 7
percent of funds provided to FSA for farm loans should the need arise.
cce computer modernization
Question. Mr. Secretary, the budget includes $35,000,000 under
Conservation Operations for CCE computer modernization and upgrades.
Will this activity require funding beyond fiscal year 2011? If so, what
is the anticipated overall cost?
Answer. The Common Computing Environment (CCE) infrastructure was
implemented in 2000 to provide a common information technology (IT)
platform for the three Service Center Agencies (the Farm Service
Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Rural
Development). Since 2000, the system has not undergone a system-wide
refresh resulting in outdated equipment and processes and therefore,
the 2011 budget includes funding to reduce vulnerabilities and improve
system performance by initiating a refresh and right-sizing initiative.
This initiative will be an on-going effort to ensure that system
components are replaced and configuration changes are made to support
current and future program delivery.
In addition to the funding requested under NRCS Conservation
Operations, USDA is also requesting funding under FSA and RD. The
details of this funding request are provided in the accompanying table.
As this is an on-going initiative, its total overall cost will be
driven by the length of time that USDA continues to operate the CCE.
According to the business case developed for this investment, after
2011, total annual funding to maintain the investment and to support a
regular refresh cycle according to industry standards will be
approximately $62 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Agency 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSA..................................................... $36,000,000
NRCS.................................................... 35,000,000
RD...................................................... 12,000,000
---------------
Total............................................. 83,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
strategic watershed action teams
Question. The budget includes $25,000,000 for the implementation of
strategic watershed action teams. Please explain how you envision this
new initiative to be carried out.
Answer. NRCS envisions deploying Strategic Watershed Action Teams
(SWATs) consisting of five to seven people (approximately 35 teams or
175 FTEs), for a period of 3 to 5 years in a specified geographic
location. These teams will include Soil Conservationists, technicians
and specialists and will be identified based on the needed technical
expertise in each watershed. The number of teams deployed for each
watershed will depend on the analysis of natural resource and
socioeconomic data of the region and will be decided based on a formula
that NRCS will develop.
The development and deployment of SWATs will greatly improve the
environmental cost effectiveness of NRCS technical and financial
assistance programs. By significant planning, education, and program
implementation assistance, the technical assistance teams will enhance
the Agency's capability to strategically invest in conservation and
better target the Agency's financial and technical assistance programs.
The goal of deploying the SWATs will be to reach every eligible
landowner in a targeted watershed and provide them with the technical
assistance to assess their natural resource conditions and offer
resource planning and program help. Emphasis in resource assessment and
planning will be placed on those resource conditions that are of
priority interest in the selected watershed.
The SWATs will help NRCS work more closely and effectively with the
U.S. Forest Service (FS) in that Agency's efforts to also adopt a
landscape-scale approach to natural resource management. This will
leverage the strengths of each agency's technical skills and natural
resource programs to conserve and restore forestland, grassland, and
working farmland.
During fiscal years 2010 and 2011, NRCS will coordinate with FS and
other stakeholders and partners to identify high-priority watersheds in
order to enhance conservation on a landscape scale across land
ownerships. Smaller critical watersheds within these high-priority
watersheds would be identified for the deployment of SWAT, using
natural resource and socioeconomic data.
water and wastewater disposal grants for native alaskan villages
Question. This Committee has been concerned about the growing
unobligated balances of grants to Native Alaskan Villages. The
Secretary was directed to: obligate the funds; and develop a plan to
streamline the grant process and reduce the paperwork burden on rural
Alaskan communities and Native Alaskan Villages. That plan was due to
the Committee 90 days after enactment of the fiscal year 2010
appropriations bill. Please explain why delivery of the plan has been
delayed.
Answer. The selection of an independent third party contractor that
is responsible for developing a final work plan to address processing
delays was recently completed in January 2010. In the next few days, a
preliminary plan for analyzing the use of all unobligated balances will
be submitted to Congress.
Prior to fiscal year 2006, Water and Waste Disposal Program funding
for Native Alaskan Villages was provided to an intermediary. Some
technical disruptions in delivering the program occurred, requiring the
agency to takeover review of grant applications and head coordinated
efforts to aid Alaskan residents prepare applications is the largest
single reason why a significant amount of the appropriated funds remain
unobligated.
The preliminary report provides detailed background on the program
and how the significant amount of unobligated balances was created, and
the approach to resolve application processing delays. This report
indicates that a final report will be submitted to Congress in August
of 2010. Until then, discussions are ongoing.
Question. Please provide a status report including the obligations
history, applications backlog, and estimated demand for fiscal year
2011.
Answer. This information will be included in the final report.
Question. What process improvements are you considering to enhance
the efficiency and effectiveness of this program?
Answer. The final report will provide a thorough analysis of the
application, approval, and tracking process; dialogue with other
agencies regarding their roles in the process; stakeholder input; and
third party contractor review.
Question. What is the expected timeframe for implementation of
these changes?
Answer. This information will be included in the final report.
single family housing guaranteed loan program
Question. The Committee is aware that funding for the single family
housing guaranteed loan program ($12 billion appropriated for fiscal
year 2010 plus carryover funds from the Recovery Act) will be exhausted
in April. It is taking time for private sector lenders to unwind from
the current recession and begin providing normal levels of housing
lending. In the meantime this program is one of only a few that is
offering necessary credit for homebuyers.
When did you realize and formally notify this Committee that funds
would be exhausted so early in the fiscal year?
Answer. The Department is still assessing, evaluating options, and
preparing status report required by the 2010 Conference report.
Question. What actions are you taking to supplement this credit
shortfall for the last 5 months of fiscal year 2010?
Answer. The administration is pleased that it will be able to fully
obligate all Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program funds that
were appropriated for this program in fiscal year 2010. We are
currently evaluating various options to ensure assistance is provided
to rural homeowners.
Question. This budget proposes several significant changes to the
program including adding an annual fee and implementing a ``direct
endorsement'' program. The annual fee will eliminate program costs to
the government. Please explain why you are proposing an annual fee
rather than increasing the up-front fee which could generate the same
result.
Answer. Program costs to the government can be eliminated either by
increasing the up-front fee or by instituting an annual fee. The annual
fee was proposed to achieve consistency with FHA, and to maintain up-
front costs at current levels.
Question. Please describe the effects on borrowers of an annual fee
versus an up-front fee in which both alternatives generate zero subsidy
cost.
Answer. The 2011 budget requests a loan level of $12 billion
supported by establishing a fee structure that will eliminate the
subsidy cost for all new purchases. The annual fee that USDA is
proposing would eliminate the need for an annual appropriation to pay
for the cost of loan subsidies. The up-front fee on new purchase loans
will remain 2 percent, but an annual fee of 0.15 percent will be added
to both new and refinanced loans. In addition, the up-front fee for
refinanced loan guarantees will be increased to 1 percent. The annual
fee would apply to all loans, regardless of the income of the borrower.
This is the same as for the one-time fee that is assessed up-front, and
can be incorporated in the loan amount. The annual fee would, instead,
be applied directly to the borrower's monthly payment. The two fees,
combined, would be lower than the fees charged by HUD and VA. Low-
income borrowers constitute about 30 percent of USDA's single family
guaranteed loan borrowers. The annual fee included in the 2011 budget
proposal is estimated to be 1/15 of 1 percent. It is anticipated that
it would have minimal impact on the ability of low income borrowers to
qualify for loans.
The annual fee will be capped at 0.5 percent and in fiscal year
2011 is expected to be 0.15 percent of the guaranteed principal loan
amount. On a $100,000 loan, the annual fee will be $150. This results
in an additional monthly payment of $12.50. This is a nominal increase
and should be affordable.
Question. Under a direct endorsement program the Agency's role in
loan underwriting is minimized while the responsibilities for
maintaining credit quality are shifted to the private sector guaranteed
lenders. Please elaborate on the need for a direct endorsement program
at this time.
Answer. Direct endorsement will streamline the loan making process
and achieve a measure of consistency with the other Federal Housing
programs. Some private sector lending partners have repeatedly
requested direct endorsement capabilities. Also, this will make the
Agency more efficient and allow the single family housing staff to
focus more on single family housing direct loans.
Question. How do you reconcile this request with your proposal to
reduce (by $6 million) resources to monitor guaranteed lender
performance?
Answer. Significant Information Technology gains related to
maintaining portfolio compliance, safety, and soundness are being made
through investment of Recovery Act administrative funding in 2010.
These gains will be applied to many of Rural Development's programs,
including the section 502 guaranteed loan program. The projected $6
million reduction is supported through gains that will be realized in
fiscal year 2010, reducing the need for these Information Technology
investments in fiscal year 2011.
Along with these Information Technology gains, efforts and
investment towards monitoring section 502 guaranteed lenders and
portfolio performance and compliance will increase in 2011. This is
necessary due to the growth of the program and the level of new lender
participation. We are proactively working internally and with the
Office of Inspector General to ensure that robust portfolio quality
control procedures continue to evolve and be implemented to protect the
safety and soundness of the program.
Question. What assurance can you provide that the current excellent
portfolio credit quality and low default history will be maintained?
Answer. We expect the current excellent portfolio credit quality
will be maintained. The intent is to limit direct endorsement to
lenders that have demonstrated strong program knowledge and
responsibility. Only well performing lenders would be given direct
endorsement capabilities, and they would be closely monitored on a post
closing basis. Lenders with direct endorsement would have to submit
their loans through Rural Development's automated underwriting system.
Loans receiving an ``accept'' from the automated underwriting system
have demonstrated better performance than loans which are manually
underwritten.
outreach
Question. I know that you share our commitment to improving access
to the child nutrition programs for families that have long suffered
material hardships and those experiencing new difficulties as a result
of the recession. Children are especially vulnerable to the effects of
the recession. The SNAP program has an aggressive outreach component
that is not matched in the school meals programs. Parents that are
recently unemployed may not realize that their children are eligible
for free or reduced price meals. Others may not realize that they can
sign up at any point in the school year. What has USDA already done to
make sure that eligible families are enrolled for free or reduced price
school meals and what are your plans to engage schools in outreach
campaigns for the upcoming school year?
Answer. The Department recognizes the importance of getting program
information to families suffering from economic hardship, and we have
taken several steps to ensure children have access to the healthy meals
they need. In response to the recent economic problems, we have
targeted outreach about the availability and importance of free and
reduced price school meals to unemployment insurance applicants. We
issued a policy memorandum on February 27, 2009 (SP 15-2009) describing
ways to assist families during an economic downturn. This memo
encouraged schools to reach out to families whose circumstances may
change during the school year by reminding them that they may apply for
free or reduced price meal benefits at any time.
On September 3, 2009, through coordination with the Department of
Labor's Employment and Training Administration, we distributed two
letters through the listserv of the National Association of State
Workforce Agency Administrators. The first letter was directed to State
Workforce Agency Administrators, and asked that they further distribute
and/or post the second letter to Unemployment Insurance applicants, to
make them aware of their potential eligibility for free school meals.
We have also issued a policy memorandum to all State agencies,
Extending Categorical Eligibility to Additional Children in a
Household, on August 27, 2009 (SP 38-2009, CACFP 08-2009, SFSP 07-
2009). Under this memorandum, effective immediately, all children in a
family are considered categorically eligible for free meals either
through direct certification with SNAP, the Food Distribution Program
on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) and the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) program, or through free and reduced price applications
with case numbers for these programs. This means that when school
districts have information on a family's composition, either through
the free and reduced price application or school enrollment records,
they should certify all children in a family for free meals if there is
a SNAP, FDPIR or TANF case number for at least one family member on an
application, or if one family member is directly certified through
SNAP, FDPIR or TANF. We will soon issue additional guidance to States
on this eligibility extension.
We are also working to encourage more schools to conduct Direct
Certification matches more frequently and to do it better. More
effective direct certification is a vital tool to increase the number
of children certified as eligible for free lunches and breakfasts. FNS
published a report titled ``Direct Certification in the National School
Lunch Program: State Implementation Progress'' in November 2009 to
assess the effectiveness of State and local efforts to conduct direct
certification of children for free school meals. The report found that
the 2008-2009 median direct certification rates of SNAP-participant
children were 72 percent. This shows that local educational agencies
have increased their use of direct certification from a rate of 69
percent reported in the previous year.
direct certification
Question. Automatically enrolling poor children for free school
meals based on participation in other means-tested programs is an
important component of improving access to the school meals programs
and reducing the administrative burden of running them. I am concerned,
however, that your recent report on State direct certification
performance shows that as many as 3.5 million children who could have
been directly certified were not, and a good portion of those children
may have missed out on free meals. Congress has already taken steps to
try to improve direct certification rates, most recently providing
$22,000,000 in the fiscal year 2010 agriculture appropriations
legislation for grants to improve direct certification. I would like to
hear what USDA is doing to improve State performance. Specifically,
what steps have you taken to distribute the grant funds? What
improvement steps are you asking of these States? What support are you
providing to share best practices and support improvement efforts?
Answer. The Department recognizes the importance of using direct
certification to enroll eligible children to receive free school meals
and is working aggressively to develop a request for application
(RFA)--describing qualification criteria, the application process,
allowable uses of funds, etc.--so that States can begin applying for
the grants as soon as possible. We are developing the RFA based not
only on the best practices described in the report you referenced, but
on input obtained directly from eligible States during conference calls
that FNS is conducting specifically to discuss this grant opportunity.
In addition, FNS will continue to publicize this grant opportunity
during conference calls, webinars, and stakeholder meetings such as the
School Nutrition Association meeting in July.
national export initiative
Question. The budget request for the Foreign Agricultural Service
includes an increase of over $53,000,000 for the National Export
Initiative. This is quite a large increase for FAS. How will the
initiative be carried out?
Answer. I have the honor of being appointed by President Obama as a
member of the Export Promotion Cabinet, which has been charged with
providing the President a comprehensive plan within 180 days to carry
out the goals of the National Export Initiative (NEI). The plan will
identify the resources and strategy for effective implementation of
NEI.
The NEI includes a proposed increase of $53.5 million in
discretionary funding for the Foreign Agricultural Service for 2011 to
promote exports of U.S. food and agricultural products. This enhanced
funding would stimulate increased agricultural exports through new
trade promotion and marketing activities; expanded grants to improve
market access for specialty crop exports; and expanded cost-share
activities with agricultural market development groups.
The funding requested for FAS would be invested in three areas.
First, $10 million is provided for enhanced export assistance by FAS.
It would support expanded foreign market development activities at
selected FAS overseas posts; strengthen trade facilitation services of
FAS personnel in key countries; facilitate the participation of a
greater number of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) at foreign
and domestic trade shows; increase resources targeted at removing
sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) and technical barriers to trade; and
strengthen outreach activities to a broader array of SMEs.
For the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) Program,
funding would be increased by $9 million to double the overall size of
the program. Grants under TASC aim at breaking down SPS and technical
barriers to foreign markets that prohibit or impede the export of U.S.
specialty crops. Examples of TASC projects include technical seminars,
study tours, field surveys, pest and disease research, and pre-
clearance programs. Increased funding would enable FAS to support a
wider range of entities promoting U.S. exports of specialty crops and
horticultural crop products.
Increased funding of $34.5 million would be provided for the
Foreign Market Development (Cooperator) Program, which would double
total funding for that program as well. Increased resources for the
Cooperator Program would support an expansion in the range of
agricultural products benefiting from the existing program and export
marketing promotions to include, for example, new or non-traditional
uses of U.S. agricultural commodities and new foreign markets.
Question. Do you foresee this requiring funding beyond fiscal year
2011?
Answer. The President has announced a plan to double total U.S.
exports in 5 years. During that period, it is clear that promoting
export growth and developing long-term trading relations will require
an extended commitment for the President's goal to be accomplished.
capital security cost sharing
Question. Over the past several years we have provided funding for
Capital Security Cost Sharing. This budget does not include funds for
that activity. Is the State Department no longer assessing FAS for
capital security?
Answer. The State Department continues to assess Foreign Service
agencies for contributions to the costs of building new, more secure
diplomatic facilities, and funding of $9.9 million for that purpose is
included in the 2011 FAS budget. However, no increase in funding is
requested in 2011 because the amount of FAS' annual contribution has
now leveled off. The original plan was for the Capital Security Cost
Sharing program to be phased in gradually over a number of years, with
annual funding increases requested during that phase-in period. The
phase-in period is now completed with the 2010 budget. There may be
periodic adjustments in the amount of annual agency contributions in
future years based on changes in the number of personnel overseas and
construction costs, but no adjustment is anticipated to be made during
2011.
agricultural reconstruction and stabilization
Question. The budget includes $14,600,000 to fund agricultural
reconstruction and stabilization activities. Please explain how these
funds will be used. What countries besides Afghanistan will benefit?
Answer. In Afghanistan these funds will be used by USDA to help
support the implementation of the U.S. commitment to rebuilding that
country by providing agricultural experts who serve as advisors to key
ministries and work with rural farmers throughout the country.
Additional funding to support these efforts will be provided by the
Department of State.
These agricultural experts serve on civilian-military command units
throughout the country. The experts' work is essential for stabilizing
strategic areas of the country, building government capacity, and
raising confidence in the government. They will help to ensure the
successful management of assistance programs, to develop economic
opportunities and jobs in agriculture, and address food insecurity.
Consistent with these efforts, USDA has established a high priority
performance goal of increasing the number of Afghan provinces
designated as food secure from 10 to 14 provinces by the end of 2011.
Other countries that will benefit include Iraq, Haiti, and Pakistan,
although others may be added later.
veterinary medical loan repayment program
Question. Over the last several years this subcommittee has
provided a funding for USDA to implement the Veterinary Medical Loan
Repayment Program. I am happy to see that progress is being made. Some
concerns have been raised about the time line that State Animal Health
Officials were given to apply for a ``shortage designation''.
Have you heard similar concerns? Is the Department doing anything
to address this issue? How many State Animal Health Officials have
submitted applications for the ``shortage designation''?
Answer. On July 9, 2009, the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA) published an interim final rule and request for
comments on this program.
The rule clearly stated the intent was to solicit nominations of
shortage areas, and spelled out in detail the procedure to be followed.
The rule also explicitly stated the agency's intention to solicit
nominations for a period of 60 days. Insofar as this interim final rule
was published approximately 6 months prior to actually calling for
nominations, we believe that the 60 day response period is sufficient
and reasonable. I will have NIFA provide additional details for the
record.
[The information follows:]
The period for submitting shortage area nominations ended on March
8, and we received 249 nominations from 48 States and the Republic of
Marshall Islands. We did not receive any complaints with respect to the
time we allowed for nominations from any of the State Animal Health
Officials (SAHO).
All States submitted nominations except Massachusetts and Hawaii
(and DC). We contacted the SAHO of Massachusetts and Hawaii and both
indicated that this was not a priority concern for them. Neither
indicated that the compressed timeline was a factor.
There was considerable effort made to ensure eligible entities were
informed and engaged. All Chief Animal Health Officials received
information and reminders about the nomination process both leading up
to and after release of the Federal Register notice soliciting
nominations. The National Assembly of State Animal Health Officials
(NASAHO) and the United States Animal Health Association (USAHA), both
with memberships comprising the authorized respondents to this
solicitation, were very helpful sending out notices and reminders to
respond by the deadline.
Although the intention was to solicit nominations for a period of
60 days, we determined that a period of 45 days was necessary to allow
for sufficient time to review and certify shortage areas prior to the
opening of the VMLRP application period on April 30. Given that this
was the first year of implementation, we were prepared to allow a grace
period to those that needed extra time to submit their nominations.
limitations on farm bill programs
Question. Section 726 would impose limitations on a number of 2008
farm bill programs in order to achieve savings to pay for increases in
discretionary spending. Among these is language to not allow for the
enrollment of more than 192,982 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program
in fiscal year 2011. According to USDA documents, this language would
achieve discretionary savings of $116,386,000. However, estimates of
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which will control Congressional
budget scorekeeping, often differ from those of OMB.
Given this potential discrepancy, does USDA intend for us to
increase the acreage limitation to comport with CBO scorekeeping, if
necessary, or will Congress receive a budget amendment to account for
either the need for lower spending or additional savings in mandatory
programs?
Answer. USDA believes the projected discretionary savings resulting
from limiting enrollment for the Wetlands Reserve Program is an
accurate estimate. Therefore, USDA does not anticipate submitting a
budget amendment to Congress concerning this issue.
Question. Similarly, if intervening congressional action (such as
the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, or other actions
requiring budgetary adjustments) further reduces the availability of
mandatory funds in programs identified for savings in the 2011
appropriations bill, will the administration provide guidance on how
the subcommittee should make adjustments through other reductions?
Answer. The 2011 budget represents a judicious allocation of
conservation resources. It reflects a strategic targeting of high
priority programs and current workforce and workload capacity, while
including efforts to ensure financial integrity and cost effectiveness.
At this time, USDA believes that the current budget proposal is the
best allocation of resources and looks forward to working with the
Committees on obtaining funding for these important programs.
Question. The budget proposes to eliminate language in the 2010 Act
relating to activities of the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
account. The reason provided for this termination is ``in order to
permit the Secretary the flexibility needed to carry out programs in
the most efficient and effective manner''. However, elsewhere in the
President's budget, the entire Watershed and Flood Prevention
Operations account is eliminated. How does the elimination of an entire
program strengthen the Secretary's ``flexibility'' to carry it out?
Answer. With the elimination of the Watershed and Flood Prevention
Operations (WFPO) Program, which has been heavily earmarked in recent
years, the Secretary will have the ability to use merit-based criteria
to prioritize projects in other programs within those watersheds
without the pre-selection of watershed projects. The WFPO program
benefits are highly localized and the Agency anticipates that those
projects not yet completed will continue to receive local support from
project sponsors.
contracting and acquisition workforce training
Question. Section 729 proposes an appropriation of $6,500,000 to
support a Government-wide Contracting and Acquisition Workforce
Training initiative. What efficiencies and what savings to the
Department will result as a consequence of the appropriation?
Answer. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-09-25,
Improving Government Acquisition, dated July, 29, 2009 promotes
``building the skills of the acquisition workforce and recruiting new
talent so as to negotiate more favorably priced contracts and manage
contract costs more effectively''.
In order to meet these objectives, USDA proposes to (1) improve
training and development for new hires through an acquisition workforce
intern program; (2) enhance skills and training for current acquisition
workforce regardless of level; and (3) implement knowledge management
initiatives to increase contracting efficiencies throughout USDA.
USDA has at least one acquisition workforce employee in virtually
every county in the United States. Provision of mandatory training
requires a substantial amount of logistical and training funds. Many of
the existing acquisition employees are insufficiently trained due to a
lack of funding. Effective training will address critical proficiency
gaps and enhance the quality of contract award/management which often
translates to cost savings.
An effective knowledge management program will increase efficiency
in understanding best practices; more effectively define customers and
business partners; and ultimately provide the right information to the
right individual(s) at the right time. An effective knowledge
management program will reduce the risk of time and money spent
unsuccessfully obtaining information.
An intern program at USDA would help develop the acquisition
workforce, as well as facilitate improvements in attracting and
retaining talented, proficient employees. An intern program will
counteract USDA's high retirement rate and increase the percentage of
agency 1102's with bachelor's degrees. The USDA intern program will
include several key components as follows:
--Training will allow USDA to enhance the knowledge of its
acquisition workforce to award and administer higher quality
and more economical contracts. Soft skills training such as
communication, leadership, and interpersonal skills will
improve workforce effectiveness.
--Rotational assignments will support intern development and maximize
the fit of the right intern with the right agency.
--FAC-C certification will validate understanding of specific
competencies and expedite workforce ability to obtain warrant
levels, and expand the pool of contracting officers with the
knowledge and warrant to award procurements.
--Promotions will provide interns with a structured promotion
schedule to maintain morale and productivity and bolster
retention, thereby minimizing cost and inefficiencies due to
employee attrition.
Question. Since this is a government-wide initiative, what
consequences will result if less than the fully requested amount is
provided?
Answer. The inability to fully fund the initiative to improve
USDA's acquisition workforce would have a detrimental impact on USDA's
acquisition workforce. In recent years unsettling trends gained
momentum and these trends could continue if insufficient funding is
provided for training and improvement programs. Consequences would
involve the widening of the human capital gap with mass retirement of
an aging workforce and high turnover rate of employees within USDA.
Acquisition workforce employees frequently transfer from one Federal
agency to another. Employees may also be lost to private industry, who
may offer better salaries and benefits. Knowledge gaps will widen
leading to more costly and less effective contracts.
greenbook charges and miscellaneous agency assessments
Question. Mr. Secretary, we continue to hear concerns from research
centers, universities, and other parties who work with USDA on a
cooperative basis that assessments charged by USDA are harming their
ability to continue research and other activities as envisioned in the
original cooperative agreements. For example, certain research centers
who engage with ARS under specific cooperative agreements are
discovering that the funding levels described in Congressional acts and
reports for those locations are reduced far below the customary 10
percent reduction for net-to-location adjustments. In addition, the
Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) reported in October, 2009,
that Greenbook charges have increased from $5,400,000 in 1999 to
$61,200,000 in 2009, with a peak of $76,000,000 in 2007.
Can you please provide a listing of USDA programs, projects, or
activities involving non-Federal cooperators that are reduced through
assessments not related to the purposes described by the Congress,
including the amounts (in the aggregate by program) and purposes of
such assessments?
Answer. Programs are affected for a variety of reasons. In addition
to the traditional assessments that pay for services provided by the
Department, programs can be reduced based on statutory direction as is
the case with the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the
Biotechnology Risk Assessment Programs. In addition, there are
statutory authorities that make assessments permissive such as the case
with NIFA programs where statutory authority allows up to 4 percent of
program funding to be assessed to pay agency costs for program
management and oversight. In addition, there could be assessments to
fund Department-wide costs, such as e-Government charges, or agency
specific assessments to support program management and oversight.
The following table provides a summary of agency programs involving
non-Federal cooperators that are reduced for these types of program
costs.
The information is submitted for the record.
[The information follows:]
LIST OF PROGRAMS, PROJECTS OR ACTIVITIES INVOLVING NON-FEDERAL COOPERATORS THAT ARE REDUCED THROUGH ASSESSMENTS
FISCAL YEAR 2009
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Agency/program 2009 enacted Assessments available
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Research Service: \1\
Salaries and Expenses....................................... $3,323 $332 $2,991
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
Salaries and Expenses....................................... 4,963 852 4,111
Food Safety and Inspection Service: \2\
Salaries and Expenses....................................... 59,170 1,773 57,397
National Institute of Food and Agriculture: \3\
Research and Education Activities........................... 691,524 54,919 636,605
Extension Activities........................................ 474,250 20,786 453,464
Integrated Activities....................................... 56,864 2,842 54,022
Natural Resources Conservation Service: \4\
Conservation Operations..................................... 11,693 1,437 10,256
Watershed Operations........................................ 5,276 465 4,811
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ARS has a long-standing policy of applying a 10 percent indirect cost assessment on increases in
appropriated program funds to finance administrative and program management costs associated with conducting
nationwide research programs. This policy is documented in REE Policies & Procedures 329.5 entitled,
Assessment of Indirect Program Support Costs and Indirect Research Costs.
\2\ Agency met States for Cooperative Agreements up to 50 percent of State Meat and Poultry Inspection costs as
authorized by the Federal Meat and Poultry Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), specifically section 301
of the FMIA (21 U.S.C. 661) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.),
specifically section 5 of the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 454) Agency redirected funding for FERN Cooperative Agreements
to mission critical needs, including salary and benefits, frontline travel and Cooperative Agreements with
State MPI programs.
\3\ Set-aside for Agency administration costs. Unless otherwise stipulated in law, most NIFA programs are
assessed up to 4 percent to pay agency administrative costs. This includes costs for the grants review and
approval process, documentation and management, funds disbursements, and post-award grants monitoring,
including site visits and final close-out activities. Section 1469 of the National Research, Teaching and
Policy Act of 1977, as amended, provides specific statutory authority to pay for administrative costs set-
aside for the Current Research Information System (CRIS). Funds are set aside from the Hatch Act and Evans-
Allen formula programs for partial support of CRIS. The amount set aside is based on the approved multi-State
Hatch project that supports operational costs each year set-aside for Peer Panel Costs. NIFA has statutory
authority for setting aside funds for the costs associated with convening peer panels for the purpose of
reviewing and evaluating proposals submitted to competitively awarded programs. Section 1469 of the National
Research, Teaching and Policy Act of 1977, as amended, provides this authority.
\4\ Adjustments include about $2 million for Technical Assistance costs. The program authorizations for carrying
out these programs are under: Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935, Public Law 74-46 (16
U.S.C. 590a-590f) and the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 and Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005 and 1007-1009).
Question. If agencies which are funded through a general salaries
and expenses appropriation require funds to be set aside for various
administrative purposes, why does the budget not specifically identify
those items and provide for them by a specific appropriations amount,
thereby making assessments against actual research or other activities
unnecessary?
Answer. As you know, some agencies in the Department have separate
program, and salaries and expenses appropriations, while others have
one appropriation. Having separate appropriations for program
activities and salaries and expenses is one approach that has merit.
However, due to certain statutory requirements, some assessments
against programs, projects or activities may occur even within agencies
that have a separate salaries and expenses account. These statutory
set-asides include a requirement to set aside 2.5 percent of extramural
research and development funds to be used for the Small Business
Innovation Research Program (Small Business Research and Development
Enhancement Act of 1992, Public Law 102-564, as amended). In addition,
all biotechnology research projects are required to set aside 2.0
percent of funds to support the Biotechnology Risk Assessment program
(section 1668 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of
1990, Public Law 101-624, as amended).
Question. Please describe any adverse consequences that would
result from a prohibition against further agency assessments and,
instead, provide a specific appropriation to cover the items for which
those charges are currently being assessed.
Answer. It is difficult to assess the impacts of your proposal
without the specifics of what the prohibition would entail. However, in
general eliminating the ability to charge assessments would limit
agencies' flexibility to respond to unforeseen events or other changes
that occur during the fiscal year. In addition, it would be difficult
to accurately identify needed administrative costs a year and a half in
advance. Finally, historically salaries and expenses accounts have not
kept pace with needed program delivery costs, leading to the
possibility that the appropriate management and oversight of program
delivery would be at risk.
farm service agency (fsa) automated systems
Question. Mr. Secretary, the precarious status of FSA's automated
systems has been evident for several years. In the face of systems
outages, the Agency has had to take the unprecedented step of rationing
access by FSA employees. These automated systems support commodity
programs, credit and farm loans, farm operations, conservation, and
agriculture disaster relief, and systems instability is untenable.
In fiscal year 2010, this Committee provided funding to begin a
multi-year information technology stabilization and modernization
initiative. This budget requests continuation of that initiative,
seeking $38,300,000 for the continued implementation of the MIDAS
system, $20,000,000 for conversion of FSA software from obsolete legacy
systems, and $36,000,000 to replace outdated hardware components in
local offices.
Mr. Secretary, what progress has been made toward stabilizing and
modernizing FSA's automated systems?
Answer. As of the end of fiscal year 2010, FSA will have completed
the Stabilization activities that secure Web-based platform systems and
adapted ``best practices'' and technology to the current environment to
significantly lower the risk of future stoppages. These Stabilization
activities enable FSA to improve the existing network by acquiring and
using monitoring and management tools, methodologies and processes that
promote optimal and efficient system performance. The result is a
significant step towards achieving success in all future modernization
efforts. Additional progress has also been made in the Modernize and
Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS) initiative. For
example, FSA used ARRA funding to release the major acquisition
solicitation that was essential to start system implementation work,
continue program management and governance support, and continue
business process streamlining activities that leverage industry ``best
practices'' to reduce process errors and ongoing costs.
The fiscal year 2011 budget proposal includes the necessary
resources to move ahead on schedule with IT modernization for FSA. It
will support the continuation of the MIDAS project as planned along
with necessary conversion of software for supporting activities to
facilitate transition of FSA IT from the obsolete legacy system. In
addition, the budget provides for a needed refreshment and upgrade of
the Common Computing Environment to support the continued modernization
process for FSA and the other service center agencies.
Question. Is this budget request sufficient to ensure against
catastrophic system collapse, and to maintain adequate service levels
through fiscal year 2011?
Answer. Yes, FSA has a plan in place to continue transforming and
modernizing its IT environment and program delivery processes for 2011
and beyond. The 2011 budget requests $95.3 million for FSA IT Systems.
This includes $38.3 million for the second installment of a multi-year
request for MIDAS, $20 million for the continued conversion of legacy
system processes to Web-based applications, $36 million to ``refresh''
the hardware on FSA's portion of the Common Computing Environment
(CCE), and $1 million for IT staffing.
Question. Will you please provide a detailed schedule and funding
needs estimate to complete the task?
Answer. FSA efforts to modernize aging IT systems, when completed,
will work in concert with all of FSA's modernization initiatives to
successfully operate and maintain daily our IT infrastructure while
ensuring the viability of our payment processes moving forward. FSA
will use the Web to provide information which employees need to deliver
farm programs and provide a modernized, Web-based public face to their
customers in support of open government.
The Stabilization initiative began in fiscal year 2007. As of the
end of fiscal year 2010, FSA will have completed the Stabilization
activities that secure Web-based platform systems and adapted ``best
practices'' and technology to the current environment to significantly
lower the risk of future stoppages. These Stabilization activities
enable FSA to improve the existing network by acquiring and using
monitoring and management tools, methodologies and processes that
promote optimal and efficient system performance.
For Stabilization, no additional cost above our base requirements
is needed. The original fiscal year 2007 Stabilization Project estimate
did not include requirements for operational costs in fiscal year 2010
through fiscal year 2012. In our fiscal year 2010 budget request, FSA
included requirements and received funding for operational costs in
fiscal year 2010. These operational costs for Stabilization are
considered base requirements and are included in our fiscal year 2011
President's budget totaling $20.4 million.
The cost breakout and task schedule for Stabilization are provided
in the tables below.
STABILIZATION PROJECT AND OPERATIONAL EXPENSES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual Actual Actual Actual
Funding source fiscal year fiscal year fiscal year fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S&E Base.................... ............ ............ ............ \1\ $5,189,2 \2\ $27,232 $20,400,000
10
S&E Increase................ ............ ............ ............ ............ 20,400,000 ............
Base Carryover.............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............
Common Computing Environment ............ $24,585,000 ............ ............ ............ ............
(CCE)......................
Emergency Supplemental...... ............ ............ $37,500,000 ............ ............ ............
Recovery Act (ARRA)......... ............ ............ ............ 9,126,345 21,873,655 ............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................. ............ 24,585,000 37,500,000 14,315,555 42,300,887 20,400,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Stabilization Operational Expenses for fiscal year 2011 and beyond will be covered from within the S&E
base.
Total Stabilization Project Costs (fiscal years 2007-2010): $118,701,442.
\1\ The $5,189,210 in the S&E base for Stabilization was provided for fiscal year 2009 only to expedite
contracting until ARRA funds were available. The only funds designated for Stabilization in fiscal year 2009
were ARRA funds.
\2\ In fiscal year 2010, FSA made a conscious decision to use $5,161,978 from the fiscal year 2009 S&E base to
cover other critical infrastructure operational needs, which left $27,232 in the base for Stabilization
expenses.
STABILIZATION TASK SCHEDULE FISCAL YEAR 2007 THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiative/Task Fiscal year 2007 Fiscal year 2008 Fiscal year 2009 Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011 Fiscal year 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stabilization Investment Tasks:
eAUTH Performance Start............. End............... .................. .................. .................. ..................
Enhancements.
Site B Disaster Recovery Start............. End............... .................. .................. .................. ..................
Management Study.
Data Base Performance .................. Start & End....... .................. .................. .................. ..................
training.
ITS Independent Verification Start............. End............... .................. .................. .................. ..................
and Validation (IV&V)
Management Study.
Application Performance Start............. .................. End............... .................. .................. ..................
Monitoring.
Network Server Management... Start............. End............... .................. .................. .................. ..................
Certification & Start............. End............... .................. .................. .................. ..................
Accreditation Management.
Technical Performance Start............. End............... .................. .................. .................. ..................
Training.
IV&V Gartner Management .................. Start & End....... .................. .................. .................. ..................
Study.
Project Closeout and .................. .................. Start & End....... .................. .................. ..................
Migration Management.
Security Performance .................. Start & End....... .................. .................. .................. ..................
Training.
Security Operations .................. Start............. End............... .................. .................. ..................
Monitoring Enhancements.
Application Build and Test .................. Start............. End............... .................. .................. ..................
Performance Management.
Application Availability and Start............. End............... Migrated To Migrated To Migrated To Migrated To
Performance Lab. Operations. Operations. Operations. Operations
Application Performance Start............. .................. End............... Migrated To Migrated To Migrated To
Testing. Operations. Operations. Operations
Data Base Management........ Start............. End............... Migrated To Migrated To Migrated To Migrated To
Operations. Operations. Operations. Operations
Application Process Flow Start............. .................. End............... Migrated To Migrated To Migrated To
Management. Operations. Operations. Operations
Application Middleware .................. Start............. End............... Migrated To Migrated To Migrated To
Performance Upgrade. Operations. Operations. Operations
Enterprise Data Management.. .................. Start............. End............... Migrated To Migrated To Migrated To
Operations. Operations. Operations
Enterprise Reporting .................. Start............. .................. End............... Migrated To Migrated To
Performance Capability. Operations. Operations
Application Process Flow .................. Start............. End............... Migrated To Migrated To Migrated To
Management Reposi- tory. Operations. Operations. Operations
IT Infrastructure Start............. .................. End............... Migrated To Migrated To Migrated To
Architecture Management. Operations. Operations. Operations
End to End User Performance Start............. .................. End............... Migrated To Migrated To Migrated To
Monitor. Operations. Operations. Operations
Hosting and Network Start............. End............... Migrated To Migrated To Migrated To Migrated To
Management. Operations. Operations. Operations. Operations
Hardware/Software & Telecom Start............. .................. End............... Migrated To Migrated To Migrated To
Performance Enhancements. Operations. Operations. Operations
System Center & Service Start............. .................. End............... Migrated To Migrated To Migrated To
Oriented Monitoring. Operations. Operations. Operations
Problem Detection .................. Start............. End............... Migrated To Migrated To Migrated To
Performance Monitoring. Operations. Operations. Operations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems
(MIDAS) program is designed to transform the FSA delivery of farm
program benefits, on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC),
into a 21st century business model. MIDAS will streamline FSA business
processes and develop a modernized long-term IT system and architecture
to meet the needs of our customers, USDA, and other stakeholders.
The total implementation cost for MIDAS is estimated to be $304.7
million. In fiscal year 2006, fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008,
FSA utilized $2,716,000 of Salary and Expense funds for pre-planning
and project office set up. These pre-planning costs were not part of
the $304.7 million estimate.
This amount has not changed and is consistent with previous reports
submitted to Congress. MIDAS is currently on track. With enactment of
the current fiscal year 2011 request, a total of $159.9 million will
have been provided for this project to date (see table below).
Therefore $144.8 million is needed to fund the remaining costs of
MIDAS.
See the cost table below for MIDAS funding.
MIDAS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual Actual Actual Actual
Funding source fiscal year fiscal year fiscal year fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S&E Base.......................... $40,000 $40,000 $676,000 $1,000,000 $2,600,000 $49,500,000
S&E Increase...................... ........... 636,000 1,324,000 ........... 46,900,000 39,300,000
Base Carryover.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,600,000 ...........
Recovery Act (ARRA)............... ........... ........... ........... 5,600,000 13,400,000 ...........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 40,000 676,000 2,000,000 6,600,000 64,500,000 88,800,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total MIDAS Project Costs... 304,700,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The table below identifies MIDAS's schedule until fiscal year 2014.
MIDAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiative/Task Fiscal year 2006 Fiscal year 2007 Fiscal year 2008 Fiscal year 2009 Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011 Fiscal year 2012 Fiscal year 2013 Fiscal year 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIDAS INVESTMENT TASKS:
Pre-planning and project Start........... ................ End............. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
office set up.
Acquisition and Planning-- ................ ................ ................ Start & End..... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Software and SI
acquisition.
Task Order 1--Planning.... ................ ................ ................ ................ Start & End..... ................ ................ ................ ................
Task Order 2--Proof of ................ ................ ................ ................ Start........... End............. ................ ................ ................
Concept and System Design
Complete.
Task Order 3--Initial ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ Start........... ................ End............. ................
Deployment.
Task Order 4--Full ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ Start........... ................ End
Deployment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stabilization and MIDAS are just pieces of a larger FSA
Modernization picture. Stabilization served as a necessary first piece
to transform the IT environment to support the various initiatives of
FSA's modernization plan. MIDAS is a significant piece that modernizes
FSA's Farm programs; however, it is intertwined with several other
modernization efforts. Currently, FSA is identifying funding needs and
developing funding estimates for fiscal year 2012 to continue the
journey to fulfill FSA Modernization. These efforts include
--Enterprise wide modernization either by assuming a lead role or
partnering with USDA/agencies across the Federal Government
including Budget and Performance Management Systems (BPMS), Web
Based Supply Chain Management (WEBSCM) and Financial Management
Modernization Initiative (FMMI); and,
--Acquisition and management of geo-spatial data and imagery in a way
that maximizes efficient collection and manipulation of
information while enhancing agricultural benefits
administration and program monitoring. FSA intends to enhance
such program capabilities as assembly, storage, transfer,
manipulation, and display of geo-spatial data.
--Full modernization of all FSA program delivery including Farm
Loans, and also Commodity Operations, not just Farm Programs.
All these efforts are required to move FSA's IT environment from
one reliant on old/unsupported technology, isolated business processes
using paper and manual operations, and limited online service and
functionality to an open and portable 21st century environment that
provides IT services, support, delivery and operations for the delivery
of essential farm business management information and program benefits
to farmers and ranchers. FSA will also transform the IT environment and
infrastructure to deliver quick response solutions, such as farm bill
requirements, when asked.
section 719 of the proposed 2011 act/farm bill implementation
Question. Section 719 would permit the use of CCC funds provided in
the 2008 farm bill for various program benefits to also be used for
salaries and related expenses to carry out those programs. Please
provide information on a program by program basis indicating the
amounts of funding that would be transferred for this purpose.
Answer. The Recovery Act provides authority for USDA to use funds
provided for certain farm bill programs for administrative expenses
associated with implementing the programs. This authority expires at
the end of September 2010. The 2011 budget requests similar authority
to allow USDA to continue implementing these farm bill programs. The
information provided below reflects the amounts apportioned for program
implementation in fiscal year 2010. Actual obligations may be less.
[The information follows:]
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES TAKEN FROM PROGRAM LEVELS AUTHORIZED IN THE 2008
FARM BILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative
Program expense
estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Access Program................................... $4,980,000
Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program........... 1,530,000
Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program........ 1,000,000
Emerging Markets Program................................ 1,350,000
Quality Samples Program................................. 330,000
Local and Regional Purchase Pilot Program............... 1,550,000
Food for Progress....................................... 3,300,000
Marketing Loss Assistance Asparagus..................... 96,000
Voluntary Public Access Program......................... 175,000
Farmers Market Protection Program....................... 682,000
Specialty Crop Block Grants............................. 637,000
Plant Pest and Disease Management....................... 10,000,000
National Clean Plant Network............................ 485,000
---------------
SUBTOTAL.......................................... 26,115,000
===============
Additional CCC Spending\1\:
Feedstock Flexibility............................... 50,000
Biomass Crop Assistance Program..................... 3,000,000
---------------
SUBTOTAL.......................................... 3,050,000
===============
TOTAL............................................. 29,165,000
===============
Recap by Agency:
Farm Service Agency................................. 3,321,000
Foreign Agricultural Service........................ 14,040,000
Agricultural Marketing Service...................... 1,319,000
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.......... 10,485,000
---------------
TOTAL............................................. 29,165,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mandatory funding is provided ``as such sums as are necessary''.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
women, infants and children (wic) program
Question. WIC is a sound investment, not only because of the
extraordinary benefits for participants, but also because it is one of
the most cost-efficient benefit programs. One of the reasons that WIC
continues to be able to serve all eligible applicants is because
Congress and the Department of Agriculture have taken seriously the
responsibility to control the program's costs.
USDA just released a report that found that WIC is paying $127
million more annually for infant formula under the contracts that are
currently in place than under previous contracts, after adjusting for
inflation. The Economic Research Service at USDA attributed nearly
three quarters of the increase to increases in the inflation-adjusted
price of infant formula (the remainder reflect lower rebate bids). The
report concluded that the increase in infant formula price is largely
explained by the introduction into formulas of two long-chain
polyunsaturated fatty acids, which were followed by wholesale price
increases of some 7 to 30 percent above the prices of what had
previously been standard formulas.
Please explain whether the Department agrees with the details of
the ERS report regarding the principal causes of price increases for
infant formula in recent years (above the rate of inflation). Is the
increased cost of infant formula in the WIC program a concern to you,
and if so, what will be the response of the Department?
Answer. While I have not personally reviewed the conclusions of the
ERS report you mention, I am confident that their analysis is rigorous
and sound.
The Department is always concerned about costs which impact the WIC
Program's ability to serve the greatest number of eligible persons
within the funds made available to it. FNS continually monitors program
costs, market trends, and developments in an effort to ensure WIC pays
competitive prices for all eligible foods and infant formula in
particular. FNS also reviews State agency rebate solicitations to
ensure the solicitations comply with Federal requirements established
to maintain an even playing field for formula manufacturers, thereby
fostering competition.
nrcs oig audit report
Question. Please detail all actions taken to respond to the Office
of Inspector General audit report of November 13, 2008. Do you believe
the actions taken thus far will adequately address the issues raised in
the OIG report? Why or why not?
Answer. NRCS has taken numerous actions since the OIG audit report
was issued in 2008 to improve the condition of financial information.
While many actions have been completed, they have not yet been
sufficient in scope to produce a clean audit opinion. Some of the
actions planned but not yet completed will take more time and require
more dedicated resources to complete. Information on actions completed
to date is provided below for the record.
[The information follows:]
Training:
--Ensured all employees who prepare agency financial statements
attend mandatory training presented by the U.S. Department of
Treasury.
--Provided 2-day training which included a checklist reference guide
to State personnel on evaluating and reviewing the validity of
open obligations.
--Developed and delivered training on the review and proper recording
of accruals, the accounting for reimbursable agreements, and
the review of cardholder transactions.
--Ensured all employees completed required OCIO Information
Technology Services User Authorization Access Training Program.
Policy and Procedures:
--Reviewed, updated and issued interim policy and procedures to
ensure balances were valid, delivered orders were accrued in
accordance with policy, and obligations were properly recorded
on a timely basis.
--Issued draft policy for reimbursable agreements and unfilled
customer orders.
--Instituted a process effective December 22, 2008, to ensure general
ledger account relationship tests over Fund Balance with
Treasury are performed on a routine basis.
--Reviewed and updated current change control policy and procedures
related to testing and approving application changes prior to
migration to production.
--Reinforced the need for supervisors to adhere to policy and
procedures over reviewing purchase cardholder transactions.
--Instituted procedures for management review of the monthly
statements for fleet card purchases. In addition to monitoring
activities, periodically sampled fleet card purchases during
OMB Circular A-123 testing cycle to ensure proper use and the
reasonability of the amount charged.
--Reaffirmed guidance regarding the transfer of USDA Officer of the
Chief Information Office (OCIO) information technology
equipment at the State offices to the OCIO inventory listing
and monitored for compliance.
--Developed and deployed a Web-based tool to assist State and
Headquarters personnel in a 100 percent review of open
obligations. On-going monitoring is conducted to ensure
compliance with policy and procedures. In fiscal year 2009,
this activity was performed quarterly. In fiscal year 2010,
NRCS plans to perform this activity three times.
Reviews:
--Conducted reviews of 20 States in fiscal year 2009 to ensure
compliance with the open obligation review.
--Reviewed and ensured appropriate segregation of duties and
established guidelines and procedures for reviewing Co-Lab
project roles are performed on a periodic basis (Co-lab is a
collaboration system that NRCS uses to support software
development and maintenance).
--Completed a review of the property systems to ensure bulk purchases
are properly classified.
Accountability:
--Developed a standardized certification statement that all allowance
holders are required to certify each quarter.
--Developed an inventory of all leases. Received and classified all
leases prior to signing in order to ensure proper accounting
treatment. This inventory is compared to the information in the
USDA Corporate Property and Information System to ensure
completeness.
--Instituted a management review process and approval of agency
financial statements.
Security:
--Modified the security tables in the USDA Foundation Financial
Information System (FFIS) to ensure appropriate segregation of
duties.
--Revised the WebTCAS (Agency time reporting system) Risk Assessment
to account for all NIST SP 800-30 (Risk Management Guide for
Information Technology Systems) control areas and revised the
WebTCAS System Security Plan to account for all NIST SP 800-18
(Guide for Developing Security Plans for Federal Information
Systems) control areas.
Despite the actions that NRCS has taken thus far, there are still
challenges we are working to overcome. These include the following:
--Turnover in key financial management positions.
--Insufficient documentation of policy and procedures for financial
management activities that reflect the large number of
accounting standards and requirements promulgated in the past
decade.
--Inadequate numbers of staff with appropriate skill level in
financial and administrative organizations at both Headquarters
and State organizations. Shortages are most acute in accounting
and involve developing policy, procedures and processes in
accounting operations at headquarters and State offices,
controls over financial reporting through OMB Circular A-123,
Appendix A, and support for the annual financial statement
audit.
--Lack or inadequacy of Agency program systems to correctly capture
financial information without labor-intensive work-arounds.
NRCS has recently taken steps with regard to each of these barriers
as follows:
--Recruited for a new CFO; selection process is underway.
--The Accounting Officer position was recently vacated and will be
advertised soon.
--The Agency is currently recruiting qualified individuals for
lateral reassignment to perform high-risk functions described
in the audit report.
--NRCS leadership has procured the support of a firm to evaluate and
recommend an appropriate organization for financial and
administrative functions.
--Training has been developed and delivered to employees with
responsibilities in financial and administrative functions.
--The Agency is investing in a strategic initiative to streamline the
program, administrative and financial components of the
financial assistance programs (including mandatory funds). This
initiative will streamline and automate business processes
using role-based technology to most efficiently capture
financial transactions with the necessary internal controls.
--The Agency is considering the centralization of certain
administrative/financial functions to ensure standardization,
accuracy and completeness of financial reporting.
--The Agency has procured support for audit remediation support that
will begin in April 2010. The audit remediation contract will
focus on the weakness/risk that were initiatives in the audit.
The contractor will work with States on an individual basis to
focus the efforts under this contract including the hands-on
training of personnel and clean-up of the Agency's financial
records with regard to all the weaknesses and deficiencies
noted in the audit report.
Question. If you believe the Department is not now capable of
carrying out the conservation programs at the mandatory funding levels
provided in the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, what further
changes in management will be necessary for the Department to take to
properly carry the programs out as required by law, and by what date
would you expect to have made all necessary management changes?
Answer. NRCS is currently working diligently to address management
and financial concerns raised by its most recent stand-alone audit.
The Agency has experienced expanded programmatic and administrative
responsibilities with expanded and new programs in the recent farm
bills. However, the workforce needed to effectively carry out the
expanded responsibilities has not increased at a comparable level.
To improve the efficiency and business management of the Agency,
the following actions are taking place:
--Implementing a conservation streamlining process that includes more
effective and efficient automated processes for managing
financial assistance programs. NRCS estimates this initiative
will reduce the administrative and clerical burdens on field
staff by over 80 percent once fully implemented. The 2011
budget includes a $5 million in to accelerate this process;
--Improving internal controls in program databases;
--Updating program policies to reflect current statues and
regulations;
--Developing a managerial cost account methodology that clearly
defines and aligns the Agency's funding with performance; and
--Conducting a workforce planning assessment to identify staffing
needs (i.e. positions and locations) and to better allocate
human resources.
In addition to the actions listed above the 2011 budget includes
the following initiatives for the Agency:
--$25 million for the implementation of Strategic Watershed Action
Teams (SWATs) that will be deployed to high-priority watersheds
and landscapes to focus program assistance to more effectively
address resources concerns. The development and deployment of
SWATs will greatly improve the environmental cost effectiveness
of the Agency's programs. By significant planning, education,
and program implementation assistance, the technical assistance
teams will enhance the Agency's capability to strategically
invest in conservation and better target the Agency's financial
and technical assistance programs.
--$35 million for the agency's share of the modernization and upgrade
to the Common Computer Environment (CCE) for the Service Center
Agencies (NRCS, Farm Services Agency (FSA) and Rural
Development (RD). The funding will be used to replace outdated
components of the CCE (reducing system vulnerabilities and
improving performance and effectiveness of the infrastructure
and allow for the first system-wide refresh since the system
was implemented in 2000).
It is anticipated that it will take 3 to 5 years to complete these
actions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
mandan ars
Question. Secretary Vilsack, I was disappointed that the
President's fiscal year 2011 budget proposed a $543,000 cut in
biofeedstock research at the Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory
in Mandan, North Dakota. Bioenergy feedstock research is a priority for
your Department and for the Congress. In fiscal year 2010 for example,
Congress redirected money to this area and in your fiscal year 2011
budget, you requested a $10 million increase for biofuels feedstock
research. Can you explain why you cut the bioenergy feedstock funding
at the Mandan ARS when it matches USDA's high priority research
mission?
Answer. The ARS fiscal year 2011 budget proposed to terminate all
congressionally earmarked projects appropriated in fiscal year 2010,
including the $543,000 earmarked for the Northern Great Plains Research
Laboratory in Mandan, North Dakota. The proposed elimination of ARS
earmarks and the redirection of these funds will offset the cost for
new and expanded research initiatives, including the establishment of
five Regional Biofuels Feedstocks Research and Development Centers.
smith-lever
Question. Congress established the Cooperative Extension Service
through the Smith-Lever Act of 1914. North Dakota has extension offices
in 52 counties and on Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. Smith Lever
funding is critical to our State in providing educational assistance
and technical support to North Dakota rural communities. These funds
are necessary in order to serve long term, short term and emergency
needs in rural America. What steps are being taken by USDA to increase
Smith Lever funding?
Answer. The fiscal year 2011 President's budget request sustains
support for the Smith-Lever 3(b) and (c) formula at the fiscal year
2010 appropriated level. However, increased funding for AFRI will
substantially support extension activities through growth in both
extension focused awards and integrated research and education awards.
The budget also seeks a funding increase for the Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education program, which is a critical element
of extension delivery at the regional, State, and local levels. In
addition, the 2008 farm bill provides funding for the Beginning Farmers
and Ranchers Program, Organic Agriculture Research and Extension
Initiative, and Specialty Crop Research Initiative which will support
extension activities.
tribal college and university community facility program
Question. Congress established the Tribal Colleges and Universities
Essential Community Facilities Program to help our Nation's tribal
colleges and universities (TCU) address long overdue and high-priority
infrastructure and facilities needs. The USDA's fiscal year 2011 budget
proposes to eliminate entirely this vitally needed program for American
Indians. Can you explain your reasoning for eliminating this program? I
understand that USDA offers some competitive programs that could also
offer a potential source of funding for TCUs. If the Department sees
this as a viable alternative for these institutions, please provide an
analysis of the success that TCU's have had in competing for general
USDA programs and for land-grant programs.
Answer. The reason the program is proposed for elimination in the
2011 budget is that the tribal colleges and universities can compete
for community facility funding without a specific set-aside. From 2001
through 2009, TCUs received about $38 million in grants under the set-
aside, compared to about $229 million in grants, direct loans and loan
guarantees that all tribal entities received under the community
facility program, which shows that the TCU set-aside is only a modest
portion of the assistance USDA is providing to meet the needs of
American Indians. Further, tribes are eligible for several other USDA
Rural Development programs, such as the business and industry
guaranteed loan program and the rural business enterprise grant
program.
rural utilities service loan and grant programs
Question. What is the Rural Utilities Service doing to ensure that
the Broadband Initiatives Program promotes broadband deployment in
unserved or underserved areas?
Answer. With over 60 years of successful telecommunication
financing experience, RUS will continue to strive to ensure that it
provides loan and/or grant resources to eligible projects. Under our
Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP), RUS has established an objective
scoring process which incents applicants to bring the most robust
service to the most rural and unserved areas. In fact, RUS gives
priority to unserved and highly rural areas. RUS will rely heavily upon
the information submitted by the applicant to prove the need for
broadband service. To further validate this information, RUS will post
all proposed service territory maps on broadbandusa.gov and allow
incumbent providers to comment on whether these areas are unserved or
underserved through Public Notice Responses (PNRs) received during a
30-day comment period. RUS will rely upon these comments, along State
broadband maps (where available), and both RUS and Rural Development
Field Staff to validate the information when necessary.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
food safety
Question. I have been encouraged to see this administration's
commitment to improving the safety of our food supply, and I commend
you and Secretary Sebelius for forming the Food Safety Working Group. I
know that you share my belief that there is much room for improvement
in this area, and I would encourage you to examine these important
issues with a very critical eye.
Specifically, I am concerned about the chemical intensive
production practices that are used to clean and prepare our meat, and I
am concerned about the persistent presence of pathogens even after
these chemical and antimicrobial processes have been applied.
According to FSIS Directive 7120.1, industrial strength chemicals
such as chlorine and ammonia, as well as carbon monoxide, and other
complex chemical compounds can be used in the production and processing
of meat products. What is even more shocking is that there is no
requirement to label most of the additives on this list.
Why doesn't the USDA require that all processes and processing
agents be labeled on the packaging of meat products so that consumers
will know exactly what they are consuming? Have you conducted any
research that concludes that consumers do not want to know that these
processing aids have been used on their meat products?
Answer. Under a Memorandum of Understanding between the agencies,
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is responsible for determining whether or not
substances are safe for use in meat and poultry products, and USDA's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible for
determining the suitability of their intended use.
FSIS strives to have consistent labeling policies with FDA. For
example, FDA does not require processing aids to be declared on the
label. Processing aids are ingredients that are present in a meat or
poultry product in an insignificant amount and that have no functional
or technical effects in the finished meat or poultry product.
We have not conducted consumer research on processing aids. We do
continually review our labeling policies and strive to ensure that
consumers are not misled by information either on or missing from food
packages.
Question. Have you started any reviews, or taken any other steps to
begin reevaluating the safety of all products that are currently listed
as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) using modern scientific
standards?
Answer. To conduct a review of GRAS substances would be very
expensive, and we are not aware of any evidence that unsafe ingredients
have been allowed for use in food by FDA or FSIS. The FDA is
responsible for determining whether or not substances are safe for use
in meat and poultry products, and issues GRAS notices regarding these
substances. GRAS determinations are based on scientific data showing
that, under the proposed conditions of use by industry, the substance
is safe. Based on these findings, FSIS determines whether the proposed
conditions of use by industry are suitable.
Question. While the Food Safety Inspection Service is testing meat
products for the presence of the deadly E. coli O157:h7, what other
pathogens are inspectors looking for? Why are the tolerance levels for
these other pathogens, such as Salmonella which also has the potential
to cause debilitating illnesses significantly higher than the tolerance
levels for E. coli O157? When is the agency going to develop pathogen
reduction activities and set performance goals for non-O157:H7 Shiga
toxin producing escherichia coli (STEC)?
Answer. The Department is continuing its intensive efforts targeted
at reducing the incidence of foodborne illness and the prevalence of
foodborne pathogens in the meat, poultry and processed egg supply.
Inspection program personnel sample for a variety of foodborne
pathogens, including Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, Listeria
monocytogenes, and they will soon sample for Campylobacter.
Reducing the prevalence of Salmonella is a priority of the
President's Food Safety Working Group (FSWG) as part of its first core
principle of preventing harm to consumers. As part of the FSWG
recommendations, we are in the process of finalizing revised
performance standards for use in reducing the prevalence of Salmonella
in turkeys and young chickens. Our goal, as part of FSWG, is that 90
percent of all poultry establishments meet the new standards by the end
of 2010. Performance standards assess the plant's process control by
testing for the presence of the pathogen in product. By revising
current performance standards, we will have a means to measure whether
food safety improvements are occurring in the products it regulates.
Currently FSIS is collaborating with USDA's Agricultural Research
Service to develop a laboratory test for non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing
E. coli (STEC).
citrus
Question. I remain very concerned about the citrus industry in
California. The Asian Citrus Psyllid has now been found in five
counties and the pest is quickly approaching the major citrus producing
regions of my State. Although no cases of citrus greening have yet been
reported, producers believe that unless a resistant citrus strain is
identified or dramatic action is taken to stop the spread of the
psyllid that it is only a matter of time before this catastrophic
disease infects our citrus trees.
In your effort to stop the spread of the Asian Citrus Psyllid, how
are you engaging the Mexican government, and what efforts are you
taking to help prevent or slow the pest's movement north across the
border? Have you engaged the Government of Belize in similar efforts?
To what extent do you believe these efforts will help citrus growers in
California?
What research is being done to help identify resistant citrus
varieties and how soon do you expect these varieties to be made
available for commercial use?
The Asian Citrus Psyllid infestation has been particularly hard on
citrus nurseries because of the extended latency period of the
Huanglongbing disease. What resources are you dedicating to help
protect the existing citrus nursery stock in California, and have you
been able to identify any ways to provide an earlier diagnosis of the
Citrus Greening disease?
Answer. Protecting agriculture from pest and diseases remains a
priority for the Department. Like you, we are also very concerned about
the potential for citrus greening (CG) to spread to additional citrus
producing States like California. To protect California and other
States, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is
conducting survey and regulatory activities for both the Asian citrus
psyllid (ACP) and CG. In addition, APHIS is working with State and
industry cooperators to implement control measures aimed at suppressing
ACP populations and preventing or slowing the spread of CG. APHIS is
working closely with the Mexican government to delimit and suppress ACP
populations along the United States-Mexico border. APHIS spent $800,000
in fiscal year 2009, and is spending $1.7 million in fiscal year 2010,
to assist the Mexican government with these activities along the
border.
While APHIS is not conducting suppression activities in Belize, the
Agency is coordinating efforts with its government as well. APHIS,
Mexico, and Belize recently developed a tri-national strategic and
operational plan to address citrus diseases. This plan established
harmonized protocols that each country will use for survey, regulatory,
and control activities and will help enhance coordination of
protection, response, and recovery from ACP and CG.
APHIS is coordinating research efforts on ACP and CG with the
Agricultural Research Service, the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture, universities, and industry stakeholders. The areas being
investigated include survey and detection methods, diagnostic tools,
control tools (biological and chemical), as well as the development of
citrus varieties resistant to CG. Research and development of resistant
varieties started more than a year ago, and APHIS, along with its
stakeholders and partners, recognizes the importance that such
varieties could play in successfully mitigating the effects of ACP and
CG on U.S. citrus production. However, we are not able to specify a
timeframe for when the varieties may be available for commercial use.
APHIS also recognizes the concerns of the nursery industry about
the impact the detection of CG in California could have on the State's
ability to move its products. APHIS' current quarantine restrictions on
areas with CG prevent any host plants from being moved out of the
quarantine area. To protect California (and other States), APHIS is
working to improve strategies for early detection of citrus diseases.
Current efforts include protocols that intensify sampling for CG as
soon as ACP is detected in an area. APHIS also is working to prevent or
slow the spread of ACP from the areas currently affected in California,
which do not include citrus or nursery stock producing areas at this
time.
Additionally, the California Department of Food and Agriculture is
conducting ACP suppression efforts. APHIS is spending $14.5 million on
Citrus Health Response Program activities in California and continues
to review the current regulatory response to ACP and CG while research
into new detection and treatment methods continues.
organic
Question. I have been encouraged to see that the administration is
committed to improving the organic industry in our country, and the
inclusion of $10.1 million for the National Organic Program in the
President's budget was an important step to ensure the integrity of
USDA's organic label. However, I am concerned that the President's
fiscal year 2011 budget cuts funding for competitive organic research
programs by $5 million. With these cuts, funding for organic research
amounts to only 1.3 percent of the total budget for the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture.
This proposed reduction in dedicated organic research funding
appears to be at odds with the administration's commitment to support
the growth and development of organic agriculture.
Can you please explain this decision to reduce the level of organic
research funding in your fiscal year 2011 proposed budget?
Answer. In efforts to streamline program delivery, the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture proposes to eliminate funding of $5
million for the Organic Transition Program (OTP). In fiscal year 2011,
$20 million in mandatory funding through the Organic Agriculture
Research and Extension Initiative is available for research on
organics. Programs such as the Specialty Crop Research Initiative,
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, and Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education Programs also support organic activities. These
competitive programs as well as State and local governments, and
private sources, could be used to support aspects of OTP deemed to be
of priority at State and/or local levels.
Question. I am also concerned that some producers are taking
advantage of the USDA Organic label, and that the current standards,
oversight and enforcement options at the National Organic Program are
not strong enough. What reassurances can you give me that the National
Organic Program is actively seeking out producers that are cheating the
system and penalizing them for their actions? With the additional
funding in the fiscal year 2011 budget, how do you intend to improve
enforcement of NOP standards in the coming year?
Answer. The National Organic Program continues to actively work to
enforce NOP regulations in the United States and internationally. The
NOP is working closely with accredited certifying agents to verify and
enforce organic standards. We are conducting market surveillance of
organic labels and the organic market to ensure proper labeling. NOP
has begun taking steps to resolve compliance and enforcement cases more
quickly by increasing staff, establishing standard operating
procedures, and enhancing use of tracking and monitoring systems. In
addition, NOP is planning to develop an administrative sanctions policy
to specify when civil penalties or other sanctions are warranted;
implement a more efficient system for tracking and resolving
complaints; strengthen oversight of certifying agents and operations;
publish a program manual to serve as a guide for certifying agents on
NOP regulations; and develop a quality manual to comply with
international accreditation norms.
Internationally the National Organic Program has conducted
extensive audits of certifiers and certified operations in Europe
(United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Austria, and
Switzerland) South and Central America (Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina,
Chile, Costa Rica, and Peru), Australia, and Canada through the course
of accreditation audits of certifiers based in those countries.
Protocols for auditing large international certifying agents now
include site reviews of certified operations outside of the certifiers'
home country of operations.
With the funding increase in fiscal year 2011 the National Organic
Program will continue to improve compliance with program regulations
and will enhance the integrity of the organic label. Of the $3.111
million funding increase requested for fiscal year 2011, $2.11 million
will provide the resources needed to accelerate the review and
amendment, as required, of the program standards and regulations to
reflect industry and consumer expectations through a transparent and
participatory process; improve the consistency in certifier application
of the standards, explore statutory authority to strengthen compliance,
ensure label integrity, and respond to requests for international
equivalency agreements.
pesticides
Question. Environmental, public health, and farming groups have all
contacted me to express concerns about the EPA's review of pesticide
use. I understand that there are concerns about pesticide drift and the
impact of these pesticides on endangered species. It is my hope that
you will be engaging with the EPA on this matter to ensure that the
concerns of all parties can be addressed.
What is USDA doing to ensure that pesticides can be used by farmers
in a safe way?
Answer. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) conducts research
on technologies to minimize spray drift by investigation of spray-drift
management, maximizing field deposition and targeted spraying to
minimize spray drift. Technologies and application guidelines are
developed to ensure that the right amount of pesticide is applied to
the right location at the best time. More precision of application
ensures reduced losses to the atmosphere and waterways, thus reducing
economic losses to the farmer, fostering more sustainable production
and ensuring that the demands of a growing population for food, fiber,
feed and fuel can be met while improving environmental quality. ARS and
the Forest Service are actively supporting EPA's efforts to advance
Drift Reduction Technology.
In addition to ARS, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA) engages in promoting the safe application of pesticides through
numerous activities. After the passage of the Food Quality and
Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996, a number of Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) programs were developed by the Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Service (now the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture or NIFA), with an emphasis on the development and
implementation of safer alternative pest management practices and
strategies. These programs include the Regional IPM Centers, the
Extension IPM Coordination and Support Program, the Pest Management
Alternatives Program, the Regional IPM Program, the Crops at Risk
Program, the Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program, and the Methyl
Bromide Transitions Program. All of these programs encourage the use of
IPM strategies, which provide a sustainable approach to managing pests
by combining biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a
way that minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks. In
addition, the Pesticide Safety Education Program, managed jointly by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NIFA, supports
educational programs for pesticide applicators in the proper use of
pest management technologies.
Because these programs encourage and support the use of IPM and
best management practices, and the judicious use of more selective and
carefully timed pesticides, the risks from pesticide drift to natural
enemies, pollinators, endangered species, wildlife and human health are
minimized. Projects supported by many of these programs have documented
significant reductions in pesticide use.
I will have ARS and NIFA provide additional information for the
record.
[The information follows:]
DepositScan, a portable scanning system that was developed at
Wooster, Ohio, to enable farmers to optimize equipment settings,
techniques, and practices; train applicators to accurately apply
chemicals on targets; and accelerate manufacturers' processes for new
pesticide formulations and pesticide spraying equipment. The software
for DepositScan is available to the public without charge, and can be
downloaded from the Web site: http://ars.usda.gov/mwa/wooster/atru/
depositscan.
Assessments of methods that can be used to test potential drift
reduction technologies (DRTs).--In cooperation with the U.S. EPA Office
of Pesticide Programs, this work at College Station, Texas, included
testing protocols for ground and aerial DRTs, and assessments of
various spray nozzles and the droplet sizes produced. This is critical
in providing the aerial application industry with scientifically sound
information, protocols, and new technology to assure ongoing compliance
with evolving regulatory requirements.
New spray nozzles improve herbicide application efficiency.--New
spray technologies developed at College Station, Texas, allow herbicide
applicators to optimize the efficiency of sprays so that effective weed
control can be achieved with a minimum amount of glyphosate. The work
clearly showed that rotary atomizer and electrostatic nozzles provide
superior herbicide efficacy and permit reduced amounts of liquid spray
applications, thus reducing application costs and environmental
impacts.
Optimizing pesticide application rate technology for nursery
production.--Various adjustments of air-assisted sprayers developed by
ARS scientists at Wooster, Ohio, resulted in one-half the usage of
pesticides for pest and disease controls in nursery shade tree plants.
By using the half-rate technology, growers safeguarded the environment
due to pesticide applications and reported savings of over $200-$500
per acre.
Developing ways to prevent devastating soybean disease.--Small
droplet applications designed at Wooster, Ohio, to improve coverage can
effectively treat the target area if air-assistance is used to help
provide extra energy to penetrate down to the plants' lower leaves,
where the potentially devastating Asian soybean rust fungus can hide.
Applicators will know the importance of matching the application
equipment parameters with the pesticide choice to provide the most
efficacious applications.
Increased efficiency and safety through drip applications.--
Researchers at Bushland, Texas, and Parlier, California, have developed
surface and subsurface drip and microdrip irrigation technologies that
minimize weeds in cropping systems. Drip irrigation minimizes water
that would support weed growth, eliminates the need for aerial sprays,
lessens runoff, reduces worker exposure, and cuts the use of herbicides
and tillage otherwise needed for weed control.
Artificial wetlands that capture pesticides.--Researchers at
Oxford, Mississippi, and Tifton, Georgia, have developed constructed,
artificial wetland systems to capture agricultural drainage waters and
reduce nutrient levels and allow time for the dissipation and decay of
pesticides. This research helps to determine the fate and transport of
nutrients and pesticides and helps to establish design parameters for
wetlands. This information is also valuable in predicting how climate,
soils and management affect the cycling of these contaminants.
Sensor for smart application of pesticides.--Researchers at
Lincoln, Nebraska, and Bushland, Texas, have developed active light
reflectance sensor technologies for use in precision agriculture on
sprinkler systems. The sensors are designed to detect the health or
stress of growing crops and when connected to control systems, can
direct on-the-go variable rate herbicide, fungicide, pesticide or plant
growth regulator applications; or can map specific crop attributes or
conditions while crop scouting. Active sensor use for management of
crop inputs such as pesticides and nutrients can improve efficiency and
profitability, while enhancing environmental quality.
Contributions to interagency technical and financial assistance to
growers and U.S. EPA.--ARS' Office of Pest Management Policy works with
the four regional Integrated Pest Management Centers (funded by the
USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture) and grower
representatives to provide information to EPA on how pesticides are
used and to help determine how they can be used safely for workers and
the environment. The Pest Management Centers' Crop Profiles and Pest
Management Strategic Plans, produced in cooperation with the EPA,
support pesticide Registration Review efforts and identify pesticide
alternatives. The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides
information on the use of conservation practice standards and
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques in the local Field Office
Technical Guide (FOTG). The Window Pesticide Screening Tool (WIN-PST)
is used to assist with site specific management of pesticide use at the
farmer level. Financial assistance is provided by the Environmental
Incentive Program (EQIP) and Conservation Security Program (CSP) which
encourages farmers to use conservation practices and IPM techniques
that reduce the risk of degrading natural resources and follow label
instructions. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
implements procedures to ensure that staff applying pesticides have
taken appropriate training and certification classes specific to their
State requirements and any special pesticide requirements.
NIFA and other USDA agencies are currently involved in discussions
with EPA concerning their review of pesticide use and the forthcoming
draft National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Program (NPDES)
general permit. EPA has encouraged Federal agency comment on the draft
permit. We are encouraged that the use of IPM strategies is anticipated
to be among the requirements for obtaining an NPDES general permit.
The Regional IPM Centers promote the development and implementation
of IPM strategies by facilitating collaboration across States,
disciplines, and purposes. They serve as focal points for regional pest
management information networks, collaborative team building, and
broad-based stakeholder participation. The end result is increased
coordination of IPM research, education and extension efforts and
enhanced responsiveness to critical pest management challenges. The
four Regional IPM Centers serve the needs of the north central,
northeastern, southern and western regions of the United States.
The Extension IPM Coordination and Support Program supports
regional, State, and local efforts in advancing the goals of the
National Roadmap for IPM by addressing priority needs associated with
the coordination, design, development, implementation, and evaluation
of Extension IPM programs. The program helps agricultural producers and
other pest managers adopt alternative pest management practices through
training, demonstration, and evaluation of methods and strategies.
The Pesticide Safety Education Program, managed jointly by EPA and
NIFA, supports educational programs for pesticide applicators in the
proper use of pest management technologies. Extension programs at land
grant institutions, in conjunction with State regulatory agencies that
certify and license applicators, provide these education programs.
The Pest Management Alternatives Program supports the development
and implementation of pest management alternatives when regulatory
action, voluntary action by the registrant, or other circumstances
results in the unavailability of certain pesticides or pesticide uses.
Through these grants, new pest management tools and techniques are
developed to address critical pest problems identified by pest managers
and other stakeholders. This program works with the Regional IPM
Centers to identify and address regional priorities established by
stakeholders.
The Regional IPM Program is managed by the Regional IPM Centers and
supports the development and implementation of new and modified IPM
tactics and systems, their validation in production systems, and the
delivery of educational programs to pest managers, advisors, and
producers. The program builds stakeholder partnerships to address
critical pest management needs in each region.
dairy
Question. I understand that USDA is nearing the completion of the
Dairy Economic Loss Assistance Program that was authorized and funded
by this subcommittee last year to assist dairy producers who have
struggled as a result of last year's record low prices.
Since the implementation of this program, what steps has the
Department taken to address the long term problems in the dairy
industry and avoid similar collapses in the coming years? Do you
believe that any of the supply management proposals will be able to
stabilize the dairy market, or does the Department believe that other
alternatives would be more appropriate?
When will the Department endorse a specific plan to stabilize the
volatile dairy market?
Answer. Since payments were initiated under the Dairy Economic Loss
Assistance Program, USDA continues to operate the Milk Income Loss
Contract (MILC), the Dairy Export Incentive and the Dairy Product Price
Support programs as authorized under the 2008 farm bill. Dairy
producers may elect to enroll in the Risk Management Agency's Livestock
Gross Margin for Dairy Cattle Insurance Policy to provide protection
against volatility in milk prices and feed costs. The Department
continues to reduce its inventory of surplus nonfat dry milk through
barter and other arrangements in order to provide nutritious and
wholesome foods to low-income families and bring dairy product markets
into better balance.
In addition, we have taken steps to move forward with the USDA
Dairy Industry Advisory Committee, which will have its first formal
meeting April 13-15, 2010. We will be looking to this diverse group of
17 individuals to provide insights regarding the issues of farm milk
price volatility and dairy farmer profitability. As you suggest, supply
management likely will be a topic that this subcommittee addresses.
USDA eagerly awaits the recommendations of the Dairy Industry Advisory
Committee and their insights regarding measures to reduce volatility in
dairy markets.
women, infants and children (wic) program
Question. The WIC program purchases infant formula at a substantial
discount to provide to low-income mothers and children. Under the
program, a competitive bidding process is used in which manufacturers
offer discounts (rebates) to a State WIC program in exchange for being
the sole formula provider in that State.
USDA recently released a report that found that the WIC program is
paying $127 million more annually for infant formula under the
contracts that are currently in place than under previous contracts.
Considering that the program now spends about $800 million each
year on infant formula, that is a significant increase. The report says
that the main reason for the increase is that WIC is providing more
expensive formulas with certain fatty acids. Can you please explain
this trend?
Answer. During 2002 and 2003, manufacturers introduced an infant
formula that was supplemented with the fatty acids docosahexaenoic acid
(DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA). Manufacturers' advertisements claim
the additional nutrients support the mental development and visual
acuity of infants. The wholesale price of the formula was more than the
non-enhanced formulas. Since the introduction of the DHA/ARA-enhanced
infant formula, manufacturers have mostly phased out the production of
non-enhanced formulas. In addition, manufacturers have submitted bids
for infant formula rebate contracts using the DHA/ARA-enhanced infant
formula. As a result of formula availability and contract requirements,
WIC State agencies are issuing the enhanced infant formulas on a
regular basis.
Question. Does USDA have any authority that would prevent WIC from
having to pay more if new, even more costly, formulas are introduced?
Answer. USDA does not have authority that prevents WIC from having
to pay more for new and more costly formula. The State agencies
contract with infant formula manufacturers and accept the bid that
provides the lowest net cost for the formula the manufacturer has
determined meets contract requirements. If the infant formula
manufacturer adds a new, more costly formula after the contract has
been awarded, State agencies have the discretion to deny its inclusion
to the State agency's allowable food list and thus not pay for the more
costly formula during the life of the contract, which is typically 3-5
years.
The Department is always concerned about costs which impact the WIC
Program's ability to serve the greatest number of eligible persons
within the funds made available to it. USDA continually monitors
program costs, market trends, and developments in an effort to ensure
WIC pays competitive prices for all eligible foods and infant formula
in particular. We review State agency rebate solicitations to ensure
the solicitations comply with Federal requirements established to
maintain an even playing field for formula manufacturers, thereby
fostering competition.
It is worth noting that it is FDA that determines the regulatory
requirements for infant formulas and determines if a product may be
marketed in the United States. Due to the array of infant formulas that
are produced and in order to ensure infant formula rebate solicitations
remain competitive, WIC Program regulations require State agencies to
issue rebate solicitations for an infant formula that is suitable for
routine issuance to the majority of generally healthy, full-term
infants. The infant formula manufacturer determines the formula that
best meets this requirement. The lowest bidder is awarded the contract,
and the formula that the manufacturer bid is considered the Primary
Contract Brand infant formula. The Primary Contract Brand formula is
considered the formula of first choice and all other infant formulas
are considered alternative formulas.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
market access program
Question. The administration recently announced its intent to
increase U.S. exports through a National Export Initiative. But while
the administration's fiscal year 2011 budget invests in a number of
programs aimed at export promotion, it proposes a 20 percent reduction
in funding for the Market Access Program (MAP). MAP has played an
important role in making our products competitive overseas. The program
effectively leverages public and private resources to establish and
build export markets abroad and increase farmer profitability. Overseas
markets are critical for agricultural producers in Illinois and across
the country. I am pleased that this administration is committed to
eliminating trade barriers and boosting U.S. agricultural exports, and
believe MAP, a program with a proven track record, can contribute to
that goal. Are there specific concerns with MAP's effectiveness to date
that led to the proposal to scale back even while renewing the
commitment to expand exports of U.S. products?
Answer. The fiscal year 2011 budget proposes a series of
adjustments in the funding levels for USDA's market development
programs to provide a better balance among them and to reflect the
changing nature of agricultural trade competition. While the requested
2011 MAP funding is reduced from $200 million in 2010, to $160 million,
that level provides program funding nearly 80 percent above 2001.
At the same time, the proposed budget includes increases in 2011 to
double annual funding for the Foreign Market Development (Cooperator)
Program and Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) Program to
address long-term barriers to export growth. The budget also includes
an increase of $10 million for the Foreign Agricultural Service to
expand its exporter assistance efforts, trade missions, in-country
promotions, and trade enforcement activities to remove non-tariff trade
barriers, such as unwarranted sanitary and phytosanitary standards.
Annual funding for the Cooperator program has remained relatively
stagnant since the early 1980s, which has tended to discourage new
organizations from participating and new types of activities from being
undertaken. The proposed increase in TASC program funding reflects the
growing importance of specialty crops for U.S. agricultural trade
growth and the contribution the program has made in resolving numerous
trade barriers.
mc govern-dole program
Question. The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program reduces child hunger and promotes education by
providing meals to vulnerable children at schools in the world's
poorest countries. The Program was developed to expand and improve upon
a $300 million pilot program known as the Global Food for Education
Initiative, which was created by President Clinton in 2000. Although
the McGovern-Dole Program was authorized by Congress in the 2002 farm
bill and reauthorized in 2008, it has never received the level of
funding provided for the GFEI pilot program. I was pleased the
administration's fiscal year 2010 budget provided a significant boost
in funding to the McGovern-Dole Program. I understand the budget
constraints that may have influenced the decision to flat fund the
program in fiscal year 2011. What plans does the Department have to
ensure the future growth of this very important program?
Answer. USDA believes the McGovern-Dole International Food for
Education Program is a crucial tool for improving education, nutrition,
health, and the general food security of women and children worldwide
and requested a doubling of the budget in 2010. We continue to improve
the program through increased monitoring and evaluation, improved
indicators, and increased collaboration with host country governments.
conservation partnerships
Question. The administration's budget directs NRCS dollars to
programs that ``focus on addressing the needs of priority landscapes in
the most need of protection, and emphasize partnering with local
constituents to efficiently implement programs and initiatives.'' I'd
like to highlight a great conservation partnership that has developed
in Illinois. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources has been
working with organizations that specialize in landscape and habitat
restoration to help private landowners restore vital watersheds
throughout central and southern Illinois. What is the Department doing
to encourage more of these partnerships, particularly those that serve
to multiply benefits by using the technical assistance and expertise of
State agencies and qualified private organizations?
Answer. The Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI),
established in section 2707 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act
of 2008, gives the NRCS legal authority to enter into partnership
agreements with eligible entities, including State agencies and
qualified private organizations, to enhance conservation outcomes on
agricultural and nonindustrial private forest lands. In 2010 NRCS will
offer CCPI through the Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watershed
Initiative (MRBI) and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative (CBWI).
Through these initiatives, NRCS and its partners will provide technical
assistance to help landowners and operators voluntarily implement
conservation systems to address resource concerns in priority
watersheds.
Federal, State, and Local partners are critical to the
implementation of the CBWI and have been engaged through State
Technical and partner meetings. In many cases, partners, especially
Conservation Districts, are able to provide both technical and or
financial assistance that complements the goals of the CBWI. For 2010,
three locations in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed have been chosen as
Showcase Watersheds (Conowago PA, Upper Chester MD, and Smith Creek
VA). The objective of the Showcase projects is to reduce nutrient
loading into waterways while demonstrating and documenting the
effective voluntary implementation of priority conservation practices
and ``Cooperative Conservation Partnerships''. These watersheds will be
the locations for increased outreach activities (with potential
interaction with every farmer in the watershed). In addition, the U.S.
Geological Survey and other scientific partners will provide water
quality monitoring services to watch for potential in-stream responses
from the increased conservation efforts.
In 2010, Environmental Protection Agency received $475 million for
the inter-agency Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) to address
regional issues that affect the Great Lakes, such as invasive species,
habitat and wildlife protection and restoration, non-point source
pollution, and contaminated sediment. As a Federal partner in the GLRI,
NRCS will receive $34 million in fiscal year 2010, to purchase
conservation easements and implement conservation systems in priority
watersheds in the Great Lakes. Through GLRI, NRCS will also partner
with the Great Lakes Commission to support the Great Lakes Basin
Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. The Great Lakes Basin
Program will provide financial assistance, information and education,
and technical assistance to partner agencies, landowners, and operators
to protect and improve water quality in the Great Lakes Basin by
reducing soil erosion and improving sediment control.
The Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) also provides an
excellent opportunity for partnership with State and local entities.
Under AWEP, NRCS enters into partnership agreements with eligible
entities that want to promote ground and surface water conservation or
improve water quality on agricultural lands. After the NRCS Chief has
announced approved AWEP project areas, eligible producers submit
applications for financial and technical assistance to implement water
enhancement activities. AWEP will be offered in 2010.
On March 12, 2010, USDA announced the Sage-Grouse Initiative.
Sixteen million dollars in Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) and Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) funds will be used
to assist private landowners with implementing conservation practices
that address the many threats to sage-grouse habitat. This funding will
be available in all 11 States that have sage grouse populations:
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. By providing a focused
effort across multiple States, NRCS can ensure funds are prioritized
consistently to provide the highest potential of improving the quality
of sage-grouse habitat. There will be close collaboration of many
stakeholders, including the State fish and wildlife agencies, in this
effort to ensure that NRCS activities complement efforts already
underway.
food safety
Question. The National School Lunch program provides a valuable
service to our Nation, by ensuring that over 32 million children each
day are well fed and ready to learn. With so many of our Nation's
youngsters relying on this program, we must take necessary steps to
ensure that the food they are consuming is safe. While USDA and FDA
both work hard to ensure the safety of our food supply, in the past
some school kids have been served--and even sickened by--products that
should never have been consumed because they were recalled. In a report
on this issue, GAO recommended that changes to Federal agencies'
procedures could reduce the risk of school children consuming recalled
food. I understand that USDA and FDA are finalizing a Memorandum of
Understanding that will provide for specific notification to the USDA's
Food and Nutrition Service, Agricultural Marketing Service, and Farm
Service Agency during FDA investigations that may involve commodities
intended for school meal programs. Can you give me an update on the
status of the MOU?
Answer. The health and safety of the children we serve each day in
our school nutrition programs is of the utmost importance to us. The
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS),
and Farm Service Agency (FSA) work closely with the regulatory
agencies, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) to provide interlocking rings of protection
against foodborne illness. FNS, AMS, and FSA are strengthening the
bonds with FDA by drafting an MOU on communications during food safety
investigations and recalls. USDA is working closely with FDA to create
an MOU that meets the needs of all agencies involved. A final MOU is
expected by the end of the fiscal year.
FNS closely monitors data from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), the FDA, and other sources to ensure we are reducing
the impact of foodborne illness in schools to the greatest extent
possible. Illnesses linked to recalled foods in schools are very rare,
and there is no evidence of any cases of foodborne illness being
attributed to recalled USDA commodity food that was served at schools
in the last 10 years. The primary cause of foodborne illness in schools
is norovirus, which recently was characterized and published by FNS in
the Journal of Environmental Health. That article described the
analysis of CDC foodborne illness outbreak data and showed that
norovirus was confirmed as being responsible for over 60 percent of
outbreaks in schools (Venuto et al., Journal of Environmental Health,
2010. Available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/safety/pdf/
JEH_2010.pdf). Food is generally contaminated with norovirus by
infected food handlers, and FNS has launched an educational campaign to
address this issue with food service workers in the National School
Lunch Program.
FNS and FDA are working together on other fronts as well. We have a
joint research project to address improper cooling of foods in schools,
another frequently cited cause of foodborne illness outbreaks.
imports of dogs
Question. I worked to include language in the 2008 farm bill to
prevent the import of underage, unhealthy dogs destined for resale in
the United States. The final bill, signed into law in June 2008,
provides USDA APHIS with new enforcement authority and requires that
dogs imported to the United States for resale be at least 6 months of
age, properly vaccinated, and in good health. Please provide an update
on the status of USDA's regulations for enforcement of the farm bill's
puppy import restrictions.
Answer. As mandated by the 2008 farm bill, APHIS is coordinating
with the Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, the Department of Commerce's Chief Counsel for
Regulations, and the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and
Border Protection to develop appropriate dog import regulations and
enforcement strategies. APHIS anticipates that the proposed rule will
be published in the Federal Register and available for comment by the
summer of 2010.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
animal disease traceabilty
Question. Many farmers and ranchers in South Dakota were very
pleased to hear that USDA recently scrapped the proposed National
Animal Identification System, as it was seen to be invasive and
burdensome. We've heard USDA estimates that a new animal disease
traceability system would take roughly 18 months to complete--how will
you involve farmers and ranchers in the program's development and
ensure transparency?
Answer. We are committed to ensuring transparency and openly
working with States, tribes, and producers in the new approach for
animal disease traceability. In keeping with the spirit of the
listening sessions we held last year, we are holding a forum March 18-
19, 2010, in Kansas City, Missouri, with States and tribes to discuss
the new approach and to discuss their ideas for achieving a workable
animal disease traceability framework.
APHIS also established a working group to develop regulations
related to animal disease traceability. The working group consists of
Federal, State, and tribal animal health officials who assess options
for the animal disease traceability framework, provide input to the
Agency, and review feedback received from stakeholders, such as
ranchers and farmers. Input and feedback can be provided through local
animal health officials, and by contacting the USDA area veterinarian
in charge, State veterinarian, or tribal animal health officials.
Contact information for State veterinarians is available on USDA's
animal disease traceability Web site at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/
traceability.
USDA will also establish a Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal
Health to provide feedback to the Department. Membership on this
Advisory Committee will be completed in a transparent manner, with a
call for nominations that will be published in the Federal Register. In
addition, if States, tribes, and industry need species working groups,
USDA will establish these groups under the Advisory Committee on Animal
Health. Upon publication of the proposed rule, APHIS will offer a
comment period of 90 days for comments and feedback from farmers,
ranchers, and other interested parties. APHIS will also ensure timely
updates to the Agency's traceability Web site to honor our commitment
to transparency.
country of origin labeling
Question. Thank you for your work in implementing Country of Origin
Labeling. As you know, this has been a substantial priority for me
since 1992. USDA conducted a survey to ascertain how COOL was being
implemented in accordance with Congressional intent. When will the
results of that survey be released?
Answer. Since the COOL Final Rule went into effect, USDA has been
carrying out compliance activities through conducting in-store retail
reviews. In calendar Year 2009, COOL compliance reviews were performed
in 3,871 retail stores where approximately 1.16 million item types
(e.g., U.S. Choice Strip Steak, company branded strip steak, bin of
tomatoes, package of carrots, Tilapia fillet, etc.) were evaluated. By
this summer, we plan to have completed a total of 12,700 reviews.
We are currently in preparations to post information related to our
compliance-related activities on the USDA Web site late this spring. We
will ensure this information is provided to you at that time.
``actively engaged'' farmer
Question. I am disappointed to see that USDA's rules on farm
program payment limits do not include a stronger interpretation of what
it means to be an ``actively engaged'' farmer. Will USDA revisit this
definition?
Answer. For more than 20 years, Congress and USDA have worked to
ensure that farm program benefits only go to farmers who are actively
engaged in farming. For 2009-12, new requirements were placed on the
contributions of active personal labor and/or active personal
management by the partners, stockholders, and members of some types of
legal entities in the determination of actively engaged in farming.
These changes include:
--Each of the partners, stockholders, or members must make a
contribution of active personal labor and/or active personal
management to the farming operation that must be performed on a
regular basis, be identifiable and documentable, and separate
and be distinct from the contributions of any other partner,
stockholder, or member of the farming operation;
--The contribution of the partners, stockholders and members must be
significant and commensurate; the legal entity will make
contributions to the farming operation that are at risk for a
loss, with the level of risk being commensurate with the
claimed share of the farming operation; and
--The failure of any partner, stockholder, or member to meet this
requirement will result in a reduction of payments to the
payment entity commensurate with the ownership share held by
that interest holder.
On an on-going basis, USDA examines the definitions and parameters
we use for a wide variety of programs. Likewise, staff continually
reviews our actively engaged regulations to determine whether changes
in those regulations are needed to prevent farm program payments going
to non-farmers. Given the changing structure of agriculture--including
how operations are run and their financial and ownership structures--we
are evaluating options to best ensure that our programs are equitable
and efficient to all, while at the same time taking into account a wide
variety of viewpoints.
veterinary medical loan repayment program
Question. I am glad to see USDA has implemented the Veterinary
Medical Loan Repayment Program. I am concerned, however, that the
timeline to turn in shortage area nominations has been too compressed.
What outreach has USDA undertaken to ensure that every State has ample
opportunity to participate in this program, and has USDA received
complaints from State Animal Health Officials about the timeline?
Answer. On July 9, 2009, the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA) published an interim final rule and request for
comments on this program.
The rule clearly stated the intent of was to solicit nominations of
shortage areas, and spelled out in detail the procedure to be followed.
The rule also explicitly stated the Agency's intention to solicit
nominations for a period of 60 days. Insofar as this interim final rule
was published approximately 6 months prior to actually calling for
nominations, we believe that the 60 day response period is sufficient
and reasonable. I will have NIFA provide additional information for the
record.
[The information follows:]
The period for submitting shortage area nominations ended on March
8, and we received 249 nominations from 48 States and the Republic of
Marshall Islands. We did not receive any complaints with respect to the
time we allowed for nominations from any of the State Animal Health
Officials (SAHO).
All States submitted nominations except Massachusetts and Hawaii
and the District of Columbia). We contacted the SAHO of Massachusetts
and Hawaii and both indicated that this was not a priority concern for
them. Neither indicated that the compressed timeline was a factor.
There was considerable effort made to ensure eligible entities were
informed and engaged. All Chief Animal Health Officials received
information and reminders about the nomination process both leading up
to and after release of the Federal Register notice soliciting
nominations. The National Assembly of State Animal Health Officials
(NASAHO) and the United States Animal Health Association (USAHA), both
with memberships comprising the authorized respondents to this
solicitation, were very helpful sending out notices and reminders to
respond by the deadline.
Although the intention was to solicit nominations for a period of
60 days, we determined that a period of 45 days was necessary to allow
for sufficient time to review and certify shortage areas prior to the
opening of the VMLRP application period on April 30. Given that this
was the first year of implementation, we were prepared to allow a grace
period to those that needed extra time to submit their nominations.
conservation technical assistance
Question. I've heard many times from conservation groups that a
crucial piece of conservation program implementation is an adequate
focus and dedication to technical assistance to ensure producers are in
compliance with program requirements. What are your thoughts on
technical assistance, and will you place additional emphasis on this?
Answer. The successful delivery of conservation technical
assistance is inherently a field-based activity. Since 2002, increased
administrative workload associated with increased financial assistance
programs has reduced the amount of time field staff can spend in the
field during the planning process. At the same time the financial
assistance funding has increased, the number of NRCS FTE's has remained
relatively stable. To streamline the business processes required to
support conservation planning and contract development, NRCS is
designing a mobile conservation planning tool that will be a critical
part of our delivery model in the future. NRCS envisions having field
staff in the field, working with clients 65 to 80 percent of the time.
Web-based applications will integrate Geographic Information System
services and mobile computing so that planning and contract development
will occur simultaneously as the planner is working in the field.
The streamlining effort and next generation tools will: (1) make
participation in USDA's conservation programs easier for customers and
the delivery of programs less complex for employees; (2) increase
efficiencies by streamlining and integrating processes across business
lines, and (3) ensure the continued science-based delivery of
technically sound conservation products and services.
NRCS envisions deploying Strategic Watershed Action Teams (SWATs)
consisting of five to seven people (approximately 35 teams or 175
FTEs), for a period of 3 to 5 years in a specified geographic location.
These teams will include Soil Conservationists, technicians and
specialists and will be identified based on the needed technical
expertise in each watershed. The number of teams deployed for each
watershed will depend on the analysis of natural resource and
socioeconomic data of the region and will be decided based on a formula
that NRCS will develop.
The development and deployment of SWATs will greatly improve the
environmental cost effectiveness of NRCS technical and financial
assistance programs. By significant planning, education, and program
implementation assistance, the technical assistance teams will enhance
the Agency's capability to strategically invest in conservation and
better target the Agency's financial and technical assistance programs.
The goal of deploying the SWATs will be to reach every eligible
landowner in a targeted watershed and provide them with the technical
assistance to assess their natural resource conditions and offer
resource planning and program help. Emphasis in resource assessment and
planning will be placed on those resource conditions that are of
priority interest in the selected watershed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nelson
rural microenterprise assistance program
Question. I worked to get the Rural Microenterprise Assistance
Program (RMAP) into the 2008 farm bill (The Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act, Public Law 110-246), which was signed into law on in June
of 2008. Unfortunately 20 months later we are still waiting for USDA to
roll out this new initiative.
With small business making up 90 percent of all rural businesses
and over one-million rural businesses containing 20 or fewer employees;
Congress supported the creation of RMAP, and provided mandatory funding
for the initiative. Because we wanted to address the financing needs of
small rural businesses, particularly the small firms with less than 10
employees that have always had a difficult time securing affordable and
flexible financing.
The current economic slowdown has made it even more difficult for
these businesses. The reasons: banks are no longer willing to provide
capital for expansion, for working capital or for equipment. The
situation is even more dire for start-up businesses that do not have a
track record and must depend on ``character lending.'' The start-ups
and micro businesses are on the chopping block for private credit even
with a good business plan and/or record of success. While the
Department published a proposed rule on RMAP last fall, we have seen
nothing since. When can we expect the program to be implemented?
Answer. We anticipate that an interim rule will be published in
April 2010 and that the Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) will follow
shortly thereafter.
Question. Can you provide a timetable for issuing a publication of
a final rule, Notice of Fund Availability, application deadlines and
loan and grant awards?
Answer. We anticipate publication of the Interim Rule in April,
2010 and that a NOFA will follow very shortly thereafter. Applications
could be accepted as early as May with the first awards being made in
August.
Question. The budget proposes a reduction of $1.65 million in
microenterprise assistance grants. A number of Members expressed
concern in a letter to the Department November 23, 2009 that the
proposed rule did not adequately address need to ensure that the
government's investment in this program was protected through technical
assistance to borrowers nor did the rule seem to fully grasp the
importance of helping those entities and organizations with community
need but without the capacity to implement a program authorized under
RMAP right this second. What is the view of the Department on technical
assistance activities authorized under RMAP?
Answer. The Department fully realizes the importance of technical
assistance to micro-borrowers and potential micro-borrowers. We also
recognize the subcommittee's position regarding the expansion of the
microenterprise development industry into areas without immediate
capacity. Upon receipt of the November 23rd letter the Department
internally addressed each of the subcommittee's concerns in developing
the interim rule. The rule is currently under review.
In that same letter, we also commented on the proposed rule
regarding loan rates and loan loss reserves. In our view the statute is
clear in mandating 1 percent loans to intermediaries. The rule proposed
a different and in our view more confusing approach. The proposed rule
also required borrowers to fund from their own resources the loan loss
reserve. This requirement will serve to limit participation of
organizations with limited resources. Our suggestion was to fund that
out of the Federal loan.
Question. What is the Department's view on these issues?
Answer. We agree that the rate structure in the proposed rule was
not straight-forward. This issue has been addressed in the interim
rule. We believe that the interim rule is much simpler.
Regarding the Loan Loss Reserve Fund (LLRF), we fully understand
the subcommittee's position regarding lowering the cost of program
participation by funding the LLRF with Federal funding.
research
Question. The scarcity of food and the disappearance of fuel have
the potential to be major crises that could develop across the world.
Certainly research in Agriculture has the potential to mitigate the
impact of these possible shortages.
While we have seen significant sums of research funding through the
National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, DOE's
Office of Science, we have not had the same investment in agricultural
research. The proposed $1.35 billion in discretionary spending for the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is the same level as
last year.
Recognizing agricultural research can address these challenges and
find solutions--by addressing water quality and quantity issues;
adapting to climate change and the effect it has on agriculture and
forestry; increasing food production for a raising population with
reduced inputs; and promoting renewable fuels to replace dependence on
foreign fossil fuels--how do you anticipate utilizing the fund that are
available to promote these activities?
What can be done in the future to get Agricultural research the
recognition it deserves to grab a greater share of the overall Federal
budget?
Answer. We have taken a critical step toward giving agricultural
science the recognition it deserves by substantially increasing funding
for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative competitive grant
program which is focused on high priority issues where science and
education can solve real problems in agriculture--improving food
safety, reducing childhood obesity, adapting and mitigating climate
change, expanding biofuels, and addressing world hunger. NIFA will
focus resources on larger, longer programs to create substantial
impacts in addressing critical issues facing the long-term viability of
agriculture. By working with the best and brightest scientist across
the Nation, and continuing to foster collaborations with other science
agencies, we hope to reposition agricultural research within the
Federal science enterprise.
international food security
Question. Continuing on the importance of food scarcity and
security, could you elaborate on your plans for international food
security?
Answer. USDA is participating in a ``whole-of-government'' approach
to a global food security initiative called ``Feed the Future.'' The
U.S. strategy will:
--Address the underlying causes of hunger with a comprehensive
approach by focusing on agricultural productivity, linking
farmers to markets, and reducing under-nutrition;
--Invest in country-led plans and tailoring assistance to the needs
of individual countries through country-led consultations and
investment plans;
--Improve strategic coordination through participation of all
stakeholders to ensure efficiency, effectiveness, and
accountability;
--Leverage the strengths of multilateral institutions to deliver
resources effectively, increase resources, and promote
inclusive policy dialog; and
--Make long-term, sustained and accountable investments and use
benchmarks and targets to measure progress toward meeting the
initiative's goals.
USDA's role will be to leverage the wealth of knowledge and
expertise it possesses to support the U.S. initiative in areas of (1)
basic agricultural research, (2) adaptive research that takes
scientific innovation and output to farmers and processors, and (3)
capacity building to ensure sustained country ability to build and
maintain agricultural statistics systems; enhance capabilities with
Ministries of Agriculture; link farmers to markets; conduct policy and
market analysis; and create and oversee modern food safety standards
and regulations. USDA will not have the lead for the U.S. Government
for agricultural development activities.
international food security
Question. Many of our universities have long worked on agricultural
production around the world. What do you see as the partnership role
between these universities and USDA in addressing the issues of
international food security?
Answer. Global food security is one of USDA's Research, Education,
and Economics agencies' Challenge Areas and it is addressed in part
through the NIFA's partnership with land grant and other public
universities. USDA international activities and outreach often involve
and rely upon expertise and experience of academic personnel from our
universities. For instance, because of their experience and expertise
in Haitian soils and agriculture, researchers from Auburn University
(Alabama), the University of Florida, and Virginia Tech University were
in the group that was there to set up soil fertility evaluations and
recommendations when recent earthquake there occurred. NIFA's 2010
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) will have a request for
application on Global Food Security and will award grants for research,
extension, and education in this area to universities and other
research institutions. Also, it is anticipated that much of USDA's
research, education, and outreach commitment to the Global Research
Alliance for Agricultural Greenhouse Gases will be accomplished through
grants to U.S. universities. In addition to reducing greenhouse gases
from agriculture, this research will improve international food
security. It is further anticipated that leading scientists from
universities will participate in the research groups of the Alliance
and provide input and expertise for many of the Alliance's activities.
NIFA's International Programs section also administers funds awarded to
U.S. universities in the area of international agricultural production
and food security. For instance, in 2008, 23 institutions received
grants to enhance capabilities of U.S. universities to conduct
international collaborative research, extension, and teaching through
the competitively awarded International Science and Education Grants
program. The projects will enhance the international content of
curricula, provide faculty with the opportunity to work outside the
United States to bring lessons learned back to the classroom, promote
international research partnerships, enhance the use and application of
foreign technologies in the United States and strengthen the role that
colleges and universities play in maintaining U.S. competitiveness.
Question. While DOE has made huge investments in biofuels, their
investments in renewable it is towards non-grain cellulosic ethanol.
These priorities ignore the years of success made by grain ethanol and
the efficiency gains made by the industry that will continue to
drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the
profitability in the first generation of biofuels. What steps is USDA
taking to ensure the continued success of grain based biofuels and the
expansion of cellulosic biofuels in order for farmers and ranchers to
be a part of their expansion and rural communities can benefit from
their development?
Answer. Much of the interest in non-grain cellulosic ethanol,
including USDA's guaranteeing of a loan to Range Fuels under the
Biorefinery Assistance Program is driven by the realization that grain
ethanol alone cannot met the Nation's renewable energy standard of 36
billions of renewable fuel by 2022--four times the 2008 level--without
significant impacts on U.S. exports of grain, land usage, a food
prices. Cellulosic ethanol production currently limited to small pilot
projects. Although there are several commercial sized plants under
development, grain ethanol production is expected to remain viable into
the foreseeable future, at least for as long as it continues to receive
the Government's subsidy through tax credits. USDA fully appreciates
the benefits that grain ethanol has provided to many rural communities,
and will continue to conduct research to increase yields to keep
abreast of the market potential for both grain ethanol and bio-diesel.
USDA also understands that there are potential benefits for cellulosic
ethanol and other renewable fuels that also need to be tapped through
its research. In addition, USDA administers a number of 2008 farm bill
programs that support the commercialization of advanced fuels.
national drought mitigation center
Question. With USDA reorganizing its research priorities the
National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) was not included in the
Department's fiscal year 2011 budget. Based at the University of
Nebraska--Lincoln, NDMC helps people and institutions develop and
implement measures to reduce societal vulnerability to drought. By
stressing preparation and risk management over crisis management, the
Center provides valuable research that is utilized by all levels
government and the agriculture sector to lessen the impact of drought.
While we will work to provide funding for the Center through our
work in Congress, what can be done to protect the valuable work of the
NDMC and ensure its funding for years to come?
Answer. Mitigation and adaptation to climate change will be one of
the focus areas of the Requests for Applications in the Agriculture and
Food Research Initiative competitive grants program in 2010 and
anticipated in 2011, where the NDMC should be well positioned to
compete.
trade
Question. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has again targeted the
Market Access Program for a 20 percent reduction. While the budget
proposes an additional $53.5 million for Department of Agriculture
export promotion activities, of which $34.5 million is for the Foreign
Market Development program, I am concerned about any reduction in
funding for programs that assist farmers and ranchers to gain access in
foreign markets and help their products overcome the inherent biases
and barriers that can block access to the market.
I would like to hear more about the Department's efforts in helping
agriculture keep up with the fluctuations in the market. What steps is
it taking to help overcome new regulations and barriers that our
international partners are putting up to our agricultural products?
Answer. As tariff barriers declined with the emergence of the World
Trade Organization (WTO), there has been a dramatic increase in non-
tariff barriers to trade such as unnecessarily restrictive and
scientifically unjustified regulations to protect human, animal and
plant health, and technical barriers to trade (TBTs). In spite of the
WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) and TBT Agreements, countries have
increasingly erected SPS and technical barriers as a means to protect
domestic industries in the face of quickly growing global trade.
High priority SPS and TBT issues for USDA include restoring the
Russian market for poultry, the Turkish market for biotech cotton and
soybeans, the Japanese beef market, and harmonizing international
standards for maximum residue levels for pesticides and veterinary
drugs.
Within the Department, FAS provides overall leadership on trade
issues. In Washington, FAS assesses the trade implications of foreign
regulations, and coordinates strategies to address priority trade
barriers. Overseas, FAS and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) address border-entry problems affecting U.S. exporters,
and provide valuable information on foreign regulations. APHIS
negotiates international standards related to plant and animal health--
the most effective way to prevent new trade barriers in those sectors.
The U.S. Office for Codex Alimentarius, housed in the Food Safety
mission area, promotes science-based regulations and standards around
the world, while the Food Safety and Inspection Service technical
programs ensure that foreign governments recognize the U.S. food safety
systems for meat, poultry, and egg products. Agricultural Marketing
Service verification programs provide the ability to certify to many
foreign government trade requirements. USDA capacity building programs,
conducted by several agencies, train foreign governments in science-
based regulatory decisionmaking to prevent new barriers to trade.
rural utilities service
Question. The President's fiscal year 2011 Budget has proposed to
cut the Rural Utility Service (RUS) Electric Loan program by $2.5
billion and prevent RUS lending for peaking natural gas plants, as well
as environmental upgrades to existing power plants.
While the shape of future energy legislation is a bit uncertain;
what is for sure, is our Nation's utilities will need to begin to move
towards cleaner and more efficient means for energy. My concern is by
cutting this loan program and placing restrictions on lending, we are
hindering our small rural utilities from securing the funds necessary
to help them to make the transition to cleaner burning fuels and
renewable wind power, to help them mitigate the potential costs of any
future energy legislation.
At this time of energy transition, why does the Department feel it
is necessary to lessen the capabilities of the Electric Loan Program;
especially if it actually saves the government money by bringing loan
repayments into the treasury and reduces ratepayers energy costs by
spurring the development of efficiencies and renewable.
Answer. The budget request for the RUS Electric Program reflects
the level that will be needed to finance borrower requests since the
agency is not currently financing base load generation projects. The
budget request also reflects the President's commitment not to provide
subsidies for fossil fuels. Restricting the use of RUS electric loans
to non-fossil fuel projects will increase the emphasis on moving
towards cleaner and more efficient means of energy and spurring
technological development.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
snap
Question. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your work and commitment to
ensure that all Americans have access to safe, nutritious foods and
particularly for your support of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP). The increase in participation over the last year is
clearly a sign of the tough economic times we face, but it is also a
result of USDA's and your efforts to encourage eligible individuals to
apply for benefits. In addition, the temporary benefit increase
provided under the Recovery Act has helped participants and has
provided an economic lift, since each dollar in benefits increases GDP
by $1.73, according to economist Mark Zandi.
In Rhode Island, where unemployment is just under 13 percent, SNAP
benefits have been a life-line for thousands of families who have been
out of work for months. Nonetheless, it has at times been difficult for
individuals to get enrolled in the program, particularly in States like
mine, where State resources have been stretched to the breaking point.
Indeed the State of Rhode Island was sued and entered into a settlement
agreement last year over its failure to process applications within the
statutory time lines. As you know, the Recovery Act, as well as the
fiscal year 2010 Defense Appropriations Act, provided administrative
funding to help States with SNAP enrollments.
Can you comment on how the States have used these funds? Are they
investing in personnel, in equipment? Have they been effective in using
these resources to expedite the enrollment process? How are you
evaluating their performance and how is USDA encouraging them to use
their additional administrative funding wisely?
Answer. States are required to report on how they spend ARRA funds
to administer SNAP. ARRA reporting is done in a manner that is similar
to how States report spending regular SNAP administrative funds.
According to those reports, it is clear that States are overwhelmingly
spending ARRA funds on staffing to address the increased workload
resulting from the rising SNAP caseloads. In fact, our reports show
that in 2009, over 80 percent of the ARRA funding was used to hire and
maintain staff. Early reports for 2010 indicate a similar trend. We
also know that many States have taken this opportunity to use ARRA
funding to update work environments to better handle the increase in
demand for this critical nutrition program.
Rhode Island received $471,124 as a result of ARRA in fiscal year
2009 and an additional $476,014 in fiscal year 2010. In addition, Rhode
Island received $1,501,575 from the Department of Defense (DOD)
appropriations in fiscal year 2010. Rhode Island reported that they
used their fiscal year 2009 ARRA funds for staff overtime to clear
application backlogs and to purchase new telephone systems to lay the
groundwork for a statewide call center model to improve customer
service and increase efficiency. Finally, they also developed automated
noticing and recertification packages to alleviate staff of
administrative tasks so that their time could be spent on other
certification related activities. The State plans to use fiscal year
2010 funds to further support a call center model. Early indications
are that Rhode Island intends to use their DOD money to hire additional
staff.
USDA works with State partners to ensure that they understand the
purpose of both ARRA and Department of Defense appropriations funding.
In addition to both the ARRA and regular administrative cost reporting
requirements, USDA evaluates State performance through multiple
mechanisms including participation rates, management evaluations,
quality control error rates, timeliness measures and continuous
monitoring and oversight by the regional office.
We recognize the workload pressures faced by States. USDA offers
technical assistance to encourage States to wisely spend ARRA funds in
ways that maximize quality customer service for SNAP applicants and
participants. Additional guidance was issued to State agencies on March
15, 2010, to help ensure that States are using the ARRA administrative
funds for their intended purposes. Over 7 million more people have been
enrolled in SNAP over the past year. We believe that the ARRA funding
has been instrumental in enabling State agencies to respond to this
increased need.
rural development--rural definition
Question. Mr. Secretary, although some may not consider Rhode
Island to be a rural or agricultural State, it does have rural
communities and agriculture. As a result, it has benefited (and done
good things) with rural development funding through USDA. Regrettably,
as the result of new statutory requirements and institutional bias,
States like Rhode Island have found it difficult to access funding that
had traditionally been available to them. If this trend continues, I am
concerned that my constituents will view USDA Rural Development in the
same way they view the Bureau of Reclamation: an agency that their tax
dollars support but which provides them with no direct benefit.
I appreciate your efforts, as well as those of Chairman Kohl, last
year to restore the eligibility of several communities in my State, as
well as Massachusetts and Connecticut, which had been deemed ineligible
for rural development grants and loans under an administrative ruling,
even though these communities had long histories of participating in
these programs. Under the 2008 farm bill, USDA is charged with
developing an equitable definition of rural communities.
Can you provide an update on that process and the steps that you
are taking to ensure equity for communities in States like mine?
Answer. The confusion that has existed in the Northeast relates to
the fact that there are many villages and boroughs in the Northeast and
these terms are not defined in either the 2008 farm bill or prior
legislation. The long standing policy of allowing villages and boroughs
to be considered eligible on the same basis as a town has been restored
through an Administrative Notice sent to Rural Development field staff.
This policy appears to be the best approach to providing equity for
Northeastern States.
As for the changes in the definitions of rural and rural areas that
were included in the 2008 farm bill, they involve a considerable amount
of area mapping that has yet to be done. Further, regulations will need
to be developed with regard to the discretionary authority given to the
Under Secretary for Rural Development to make a determination on
whether certain areas are ``rural in character.'' This work is not
likely to be completed before next year. In the interim, the Under
Secretary of Rural Development will accept, as provided by law, the
petition of a unit of government in areas described in the farm bill
language for such a determination and will act accordingly.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Pryor
administration's funding of catfish inspections
Question. The President's budget recommends $5 million for catfish
inspection needs in 2011. This is a decrease of $10.3 million from 2010
levels. The budget cited the ``investment to date and the need for
considerable stakeholder engagement and regulatory development before
the adoption and implementation of a catfish inspection program'' as
justification for the decrease. This Congress approved the last farm
bill in June of 2008 and provided 180 days for the administration to
complete its rulemaking process and implement the rule for catfish
import inspections. Can you tell the subcommittee where we are in the
rulemaking process, which is now over a year and a half overdue, and
explain why the administration is seeking fewer resources for
implementation?
Answer. We believe that the $5 million requested for catfish
inspection is adequate to meet essential program needs in fiscal year
2011. The draft proposed rule is currently under review. In the
meantime, we are working diligently in order to develop the foundation
needed to assume catfish inspection responsibilities upon
implementation of a final rule.
poultry imports (chinese chicken)
Question. Last year, with the help of USDA, Congresswoman DeLauro,
and members of the Appropriations Committee, we included food safety
language in the fiscal year 2010 Agriculture Appropriations bill to
provide additional safety measures for certain imported poultry
products from China. This language was important for food safety, trade
relations, and import quality assurances. Since passage last fall, the
administration has been corresponding with the Chinese government to
implement the measures provided by Congress.
Can you please bring the Committee up to speed on how things are
progressing with the implementation of section 743 of the fiscal year
2010 Appropriations bill? Is the Chinese government participating in
discussions with USDA and USTR?
Answer. The Department has moved forward on implementation of
section 743 of the fiscal year 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act. A
report on the actions taken was submitted to the Committee on February
22, 2010. We have provided China with clear instructions to complete
the equivalence process, and will work with them to get the necessary
information in order to act on their application.
administration's proposed cuts to farm bill safety net
Question. Budget proposed making significant cuts to the safety net
provisions of the 2008 farm bill. The 2008 farm bill was essentially a
contract between the Federal Government and domestic agriculture
producers. During the farm bill debate, significant concessions were
made by farmers and significant constraints on support programs were
placed on farmers. For example, there was the elimination of the three-
entity rule for direct attribution, income restrictions, payment
limits, and cuts to direct payments. Now, the administration wants to
go several steps further in their budget proposal by adding additional
income restrictions, payment limits, and payment reductions.
Do you view the 2008 farm bill as a contract between the Government
and Agriculture producers? Why does the administration propose such
drastic changes to policies negotiated by Congress that are currently
the law through the life of the 2008 farm bill?
Answer. I agree that the 2008 farm bill contains an implicit
``contract'' set by the scope of programs in the farm bill. Rather than
viewing the President's budget proposals as a drastic change in this
underlying ``contract,'' however, I see this as the next step in a
series of changes that have occurred over time. Specifically, we are
recommending that the Direct Payment limit and the Adjusted Gross
Income (AGI) payment eligibility criteria be reduced beginning with the
2011 program (crop) year. More specifically:
--The Direct Payment limit would be reduced to $30,000 per program
year for individuals and applicable entities, down from the
current limit of $40,000, and
--The non-farm and farm AGI criteria would each be reduced by
$250,000 over a 3-year period--with the non-farm AGI declining
to $250,000 and the farm AGI declining to $500,000.
The Department provides a strong set of financial safety net
programs to ensure the continued economic viability and productivity of
production agriculture, including farm income and commodity support
programs, crop insurance and disaster assistance, as well as other
programs. The farm safety net is critically important and provides the
foundation for economic prosperity in rural America. For 2011, USDA
estimates that roughly $17 billion in total direct support will be
provided to farm producers and landowners through a variety of
programs.
Recognizing the need to reduce the deficit, the budget proposes to
better target direct payments to those who need and can benefit from
them most as well as cap total payments paid to larger operations. The
savings from these proposals will impact approximately 30,000 program
participants, which is about 2 percent of the 1.3 million total program
participants, and will over time comprise less than 2 percent of the
total direct support the Department expects to provide annually to farm
producers and landowners.
USDA estimates that these changes would save the government roughly
$2.3 billion over 10 years. By focusing farm program payments to those
most in need, and working to reduce the additional $12 trillion in debt
that has accumulated since the beginning of the decade, we are working
to ensure that Federal funds are being spent wisely.
administration's proposed cuts to delta regional authority
Question. Budget proposed to eliminate 100 percent of funding
($2.97 million) for the DRA to administer Rural Community Advancement
Program (RCAP) funds for the region. Why did the administration decide
to cut (RCAP) funding to the Delta region in their 2011 Budget?
Answer. This funding has been provided in recent appropriation acts
as a grant to the Delta Regional Authority (DRA) for purposes that can
be funded under RCAP, with no more than 5 percent used for
administration. No other regional authority or entity receives such a
grant from USDA. While the administration supports regional planning
and coordination, it proposes to do so under a competitive process. DRA
can compete for USDA funding as can other eligible entities within the
Delta region.
Question. How is the administration committed to improving the
economic condition of the Delta Region?
Answer. The President's 2011 budget supports $24 billion in loans,
grants and technical assistance to be provided through USDA's Rural
Development programs. The Delta region is expected to receive a fair
share of this assistance, much of which will be allocated among the
States based on established formulas. USDA's programs have historically
reached deep in to the Delta to serve this purpose. USDA is committed
to having a strong presence in the Delta region and will continue to
commit resources to worthy projects and infrastructure there.
ouachita national forest trail management plan (atvs)
Question. In late January, the Ouachita National Forest announced a
new trail management plan to go into effect in the coming weeks. This
plan, which apparently changed dramatically after the last comment
period, has agitated constituents in the region (Mena/Polk County) that
have built economic engines off the National Forest through recreation
opportunities provided by the Forest Service. Now the Forest Service is
proposing dramatic cuts to the status quo, and these cuts will
undoubtedly cause economic harm to the region, which is already
struggling tremendously due to the declining demand for forest
products. I've sent you a couple of letters recently with some of my
colleagues expressing some concern over the plans, and I hope you will
commit to working with me to minimize economic harm to these
communities.
Are you aware of the recent letters that I've sent you regarding
the Ouachita National Forest? Will you commit to working with me on
this issue?
Answer. I am aware of recent letters from you and your colleagues
regarding the Ouachita National Forest. As we continue to put the
Nation back on the path of economic recovery, job creation remains one
of my top priorities. Plans for Ouachita National Forest Trail
Management are currently under review by a regional team that will
address all administrative appeals. And in the meantime, the Chief of
the Forest Service plans to visit the sites to understand the impacts
first hand in late March. We look forward to working with you on this
issue.
rural broadband--rural utilities service (rus)
Question. When Congress appropriated funds for broadband in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, priority was placed on unserved
and underserved areas. Ensuring that tax payers funds are not going
towards projects with sufficient broadband service is a priority for
me. However, I have heard reports of projects awarded that overbuild
private investment. So far, RUS has awarded projects in 18 States, with
at least 3 States (Iowa, Alaska, and North Dakota) receiving multiple
project awards.
What measures has RUS taken to ensure that grants and loans are
going to truly unserved and underserved areas?
Answer. The Rural Utilities Service is responsible to ensure that
projects funded under the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) meet the
requirements of Recovery Act. To do so, RUS has established an
objective scoring process which incents applicants to bring the most
robust broadband service to the most rural and unserved areas. In fact,
RUS gives priority to unserved and highly rural areas. RUS will rely
heavily upon the information submitted by the applicant to prove the
need for broadband service. To further validate this information, RUS
will post all proposed service territory maps on broadbandusa.gov and
allow incumbent providers to comments on whether these areas are
unserved or underserved through Public Notice Responses (PNRs) received
during a 30-day comment period. RUS will rely upon these comments,
along with State broadband maps (where available), and both RUS and
Rural Development Field Staff to validate the information when
necessary.
Question. Does RUS need additional resources in order to conduct
diligent and vigorous oversight of the BIP program and its award
grantees?
Answer. At the current time, RUS has sufficient resources in its
headquarters and field staff to provide oversight of the BIP program
and its award grantees.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
appalachian farming systems research center
Question. I am deeply concerned by the Administration's decision to
eliminate funding for the operation of the Appalachian Farming Systems
Research Center (AFSRC) in Beaver, West Virginia. The AFSRC supports 55
full time equivalents and 6 part-time positions in Raleigh County, West
Virginia, a historically low-income, high-unemployment area of the
country. As I am sure you are aware, the AFSRC has operated in West
Virginia for more than 30 years and is dedicated to designing
management practices that sustain productivity and profitability for
small scale farmers and to delivering improved soil, water, and air
quality. Further, the AFSRC infuses millions into the economy of
southern West Virginia, an economically disadvantaged area.
Mr. Secretary, you personally outlined five goals for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), one of which is to create wealth in
rural communities so that they are self-sustaining, repopulating, and
thriving economically.
Why has the administration proposed to eliminate the AFSRC when its
primary mission is to support small scale farmers in rural communities
across the country?
Answer. As do all of ARS' 106 locations, the Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) Appalachian Farming Systems Research Center (AFSRC)
contributes to a wide range of research topics, including work that is
relevant to the five goals recently outlined for USDA. However, despite
some degree of relevance to assorted topics, the work of the Center
could be done more effectively at other ARS locations where a larger
concentration of researchers would be more conducive to achieving the
various research missions.
The work pertinent to USDA constituents will continue at other ARS
locations with similar focus on small farms research. The proposed
closure of the AFSCR will offset the cost of higher priority programs
and projects in service of USDA constituents.
Question. The Agriculture Research Service has identified five
research priorities, one of which is Global Food Security. The AFSRC is
working to develop management strategies for cattle, sheep, and goat
production on terrain not suitable for cultivated row crops, as a way
to diversify and support local food production. It has been shown that
locally produced livestock contributes significantly to food
availability for the United States and the world populations. In
addition, locally produced livestock provides alternative resources for
meat should concentrated livestock production systems in the United
States become compromised.
Do you believe that the AFSRC contributes to the agency's Global
Food Security mission?
Answer. The AFSRC has conducted collaborative research on pasture
based animal production systems. ARS recognizes the regional
contribution of this research but considers the largest impact to be
gained from conducting research on grass fed cattle to be complete.
Question. How does eliminating the AFSRC align with your personal
goal of having America lead the world in sustainable crop production
and biotech crop exports?
Answer. The ARS fiscal year 2011 budget proposes an increase of
$61.5 million for high priority program initiatives, including $9
million for expanded research on crop breeding and protection to
enhance sustainable production. This high priority research directly
supports the USDA goal of having America lead the world in sustainable
crop production by focusing research on providing a continuous supply
of improved plant varieties with protection from emerging diseases,
insects, and damaging environmental conditions. The proposed funding
increases are offset by the termination of $53.3 million in
Congressionally earmarked projects and other lower priority programs
and projects, including the $8.2 million for the Appalachian Farming
Systems Research Center at Beaver, West Virginia.
Question. Food Safety is a second research priority for the
Agriculture Research Service. The AFSRC is working to discover pasture
plant materials that can help maintain sheep and goat health, thus
decreasing the need to administer pharmaceutical products. These
efforts will produce safer meat products for consumers and reduce
pharmaceutical residues entering soil and water resources. Meeting
livestock nutritional needs, while preventing chemical and biological
contamination of water resource, provides a significant contribution
toward food safety.
Mr. Secretary, do you believe that the AFSRC contributes to the
agency's Food Safety mission?
Answer. Food Safety is a research priority for the Agricultural
Research Service. However, the research conducted at the AFSRC is only
peripherally related to USDA Food Safety goals. Medicinal plant
research to produce safer meat products for consumers and reduce
pharmaceutical residues entering soil and water resources is not
considered a food safety priority. No significant amount of the
location's appropriation is used for such research, and the location's
scientists are not among those with primary responsibility to lead or
conduct work under ARS' multi-location food safety National Program.
Question. How does eliminating the AFSRC align with your personal
goal of having America's children and the world's children have access
to safe, nutritious and balanced meals?
Answer. The ARS fiscal year 2011 budget proposes an increase of
$61.5 million for high priority program initiatives, including crop
production, food safety, and human nutrition. These critical
investments will focus on the availability of high quality, safe,
nutritious food for children and adults. New and expanded research in
these high priority initiatives will be financed by the termination of
$53.3 million in congressionally earmarked projects and other lower
priority programs and projects, including the $8.2 million for the
Appalachian Farming Systems Research Center at Beaver, West Virginia.
Question. Climate Change is a third research priority for the
Agriculture Research Service. The AFSRC develops systems that improve
small-acreage farm productivity and sustainability within the
Appalachian region. This technology is applicable to hill-land
environments world-wide. However, these production systems are already
resilient to climatic variability. The grazing systems designed for
small-acreage farms accommodate soil, plant, and animal resources are
already capable of adapting to varied weather patterns.
Further, the AFSRC has developed the technology to apply biochar
(produced from charring poultry litter or plant residues from the
biofuels industry) to improve the production capability of soil and
increase carbon sequestration. The results are improvements to the
chemical and physical attributes of soil, including sequestering
chemical and biological contaminants of ground water and improving
plant productivity through hospitable rooting environments.
Mr. Secretary, do you believe that the AFSRC contributes to the
agency's Climate Change mission?
Answer. Much ARS research across the Nation has relevance to
climate change, in terms of research on soil and tillage management,
soil carbon, or breeding crops or livestock for tolerance to weather
extremes and variability. The AFSRC's mission is not directed to
climate change research. No significant amount of the location's
appropriation is used for such research, and the location's scientists
are not among those with primary responsibility to lead or conduct work
under ARS' multi-location climate change National Program. Although the
Center conducts limited work on the application of biochar to soil as a
way to modify soil condition and sequester carbon, it is not central to
the overall research on land management for small farms and is not a
leading site for this topic nationally.
Question. How does eliminating the AFSRC align with your personal
goal of ensuring that private working lands are conserved, restored and
made more resilient to climate change and are managed to enhance water
resources?
Answer. Although much of ARS' nationally coordinated research on
livestock production has implications for water resources, and water
quality is mentioned in the Center's mission statement in the small
farms context, the AFSRC is not among the ARS locations that have a
research project contributing significantly to the ARS National Program
on water resources.
Question. The administration and Congress are working every day on
ways to create and preserve jobs in communities across the country.
Eliminating the AFSRC will not only result in a direct loss of nearly
60 jobs in Raleigh County, West Virginia, but countless others across
the country, as important assistance to small acreage farmers,
independent family farm operators, and sheep and goat producers is no
longer available.
Mr. Secretary, do you believe that eliminating the AFSRC will
contribute to the efforts of the Congress and the administration to
create and sustain jobs in the United States?
Answer. The fiscal year 2011 USDA budget continues to make critical
investments in long-term sustainable job creation and economic growth,
while maintaining discretionary spending at the fiscal year 2010 level.
The fiscal year 2011 budget proposes significant investments to: (1)
increase access to broadband and continue business creation; (2)
facilitate sustainable renewable energy development; (3) develop
regional food systems; (4) capitalize on climate change opportunities;
and (5) generate and retain jobs through recreation and natural
resource restoration, conservation, and management. These critical
investments are being financed by the reduction or elimination of
congressionally earmarked projects and other lower priority programs.
Question. How does eliminating the AFSRC align with your personal
goal of enabling the USDA's constituents to understand and appreciate
what the agency can do for them every day in every way because USDA
employees are engaged, valued, and productively serving the people of
America and the world?
Mr. Secretary, in summary, I am greatly disturbed that the
administration is seeking to eliminate a deeply rooted Federal
operation that clearly meets many of your stated goals for the USDA,
particularly when the overall USDA budget proposes a $20 million
increase for Salaries and Expenses. I want you to know that restoring
funding for the operation of the AFSRC will be among my highest
priorities for fiscal year 2011. It is my hope that between now and the
formulation of the fiscal year 2012 President's budget request that you
will avail yourself the opportunity to visit the AFSRC. I have no doubt
that you would find that this outstanding facility clearly aligns with
the research priorities of Agriculture Research Service and your
personal vision for the agency. I look forward to hearing from you
after your visit to the AFSRC and our future discussions in this
regard.
Answer. The work pertinent to USDA constituents will continue at
other ARS locations with similar focus on small farms research. The
proposed closure of the Appalachian Farming Systems Research Center
will offset the cost of higher priority programs and projects in
service of USDA constituents.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
international food aid
Question. As you may know, the GAO reports that 65 percent of food
aid funding goes to administration and transportation of food aid
commodities. Section 737 of the 201 agriculture appropriations bill
requires a consensus report from the Secretaries of Agriculture, State,
and Transportation on changes that could be made to the food aid
programs. Specifically, we asked that you and your colleagues look at
the potential savings and efficiencies for long-term commodity
procurement contracts, increased use of pre-positioning, longer term
shipping contracts, and adoption of more commercial standards in
contracting. What is the status of this report? Have you engaged the
Departments of State and Transportation on this?
Answer. Representatives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) have met three times to collect the
information outlined in section 737 of the fiscal year 2010 agriculture
appropriations act. USDA, DOT, and USAID are preparing a draft response
that should be ready for submission to Congress in May 2010.
food aid pilot projects
Question. Last year, I held numerous meetings with food aid experts
and asked them to tell me what changes they would make to the existing
food aid programs. Expert after expert told me that micronutrient
fortification was the single greatest improvement we could make. So in
fiscal year 2010, we included $10 million to develop new micronutrient
fortified food aid products for use in the McGovern-Dole Food for
Education Program. What is the status of this pilot program? Can you
provide the Subcommittee with information on how USDA envisions this
will be carried out?
Answer. FAS plans to announce the opening of solicitations for
proposals for this pilot project in March 2010. FAS will consider a
range of products in various locations that meet the micronutrient
needs of a variety of program beneficiaries and that ship well and have
a good shelf life. The $10 million in funding will be used to develop,
monitor, and evaluate the new products. Their purchase and shipping
will be covered by McGovern-Dole program appropriations. FAS hopes to
identify new products that can become a regular part of the McGovern-
Dole program through this pilot program.
food aid quality
Question. Over the past few years there have been some issues with
the quality of the commodities provided by the United States for
international food aid programs. These issues have been highlighted in
GAO oversight investigations. In response to this the USDA entered into
a contract with SUSTAIN, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to
improve nutrition in developing countries through innovative
applications of food science and technology. In 2008, SUSTAIN published
a food aid quality study for the Department that developed new product
specifications for food aid to meet U.S. commercial food industry
quality standards.
--Please address the following question in GAO's September 2009
report: ``How have U.S. Agencies implemented SUSTAIN's
recommendations on updating specifications and improving
nutritional standards of U.S. food aid?''
--New authority and obligations were included in the 2008 farm bill
for USDA to utilize Title II funds to address and resolve food
aid quality issues. Directives on implementation of food aid
quality reforms were reiterated and reaffirmed in fiscal year
2010 agriculture appropriations act. Please address whether the
Department believes there are any limitations in law that are
preventing them from moving forward with implementation of food
aid quality reforms.
--In communications to committee staff in September 2009, USDA stated
it was working to complete an ``Independent Government
Estimate'' for the statement of work of the implementation of
SUSTAIN's recommendations. Please provide a schedule for when
the award will be issued and implementation of the statement of
work completed.
Answer. USDA's Farm Service Agency contracted with Sharing Science
and Technology to Aid in the Improvement of Nutrition (SUSTAIN) in
October, 2007 to develop methods that would standardize and harmonize,
in a consistent format, the specification language used in USDA foreign
food assistance commodity acquisitions. The components of this contract
included:
--A review of existing department commodity specifications used to
obtain food aid commodities;
--Recommendations to achieve maximum standardization and
harmonization among the specifications; and
--Recommendation of a post-production commodity sampling and testing
regime based upon sound scientific standards and similar to
commercial practices exercised by food suppliers.
SUSTAIN completed all requirements of this contract in June 2008.
Most of SUSTAIN's recommendations have been incorporated into FSA
commodity purchase announcements, as appropriate. SUSTAIN's recommended
post-production commodity sampling and testing regime (a minimum of 5
samples per lot to a maximum of 20 samples per lot) was not adopted as
the additional value to be achieved was not deemed to justify the
considerably higher procurement cost that would result. FSA, partnering
with the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration,
ensures that contractors perform sampling and testing protocols and
institute tests necessary to substantiate that the supplies or services
furnished under the contract conform to established requirements. In
addition, contract provisions currently specify that the contractor
shall have in place a quality control system consistent with the
standards and specifications of the contract.
Presently, FSA does not believe there are any statutory
restrictions that would prevent the Department from moving forward with
implementation of food aid quality reforms. Because FSA has implemented
most of SUSTAIN's recommendations, FAS and FSA at this time do not
believe that a statement of work for the implementation of SUSTAIN's
recommendations is needed. Therefore, there is no schedule for
completion of a statement of work and no award for an additional
contract will be issued.
agricultural development
Question. Spending on agriculture development as a percentage of
the United States total official development assistance has dropped
from 20 percent in 1980 to around 5 percent today. Interestingly, most
of this assistance comes from USAID and not USDA. What has the
experience in Afghanistan and Iraq taught you about USDA's capabilities
to assist with agricultural development?
Answer. Since 2003, USDA has effectively deployed over 120
agricultural experts to Iraq and Afghanistan. These experts have been
recognized by the Department of State and Department of Defense for the
skills and professional expertise provided to both countries to help
reconstruct the physical and institutional infrastructure of the
agricultural sectors. USDA has responded to requests for technical
assistance from the Governments of Iraq and Afghanistan by reaching out
to all USDA agencies which have a wealth of expertise in the areas of
strategic planning, extension and education, land and water resources
management, and animal inspection and food safety. In addition, USDA
has drawn from U.S. land grant universities to support capacity
building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Question. Beyond your work in Afghanistan and Iraq, how does USDA
tap its vast pool of expertise and its relationships with the land
grant universities to assist in agricultural development globally?
Answer. USDA collaborates with land-grant institutions to provide
technical assistance around the world to help other nations address
economic transitions, natural disasters, minimal resources, and decades
of neglect and mismanagement. The partnership between USDA and U.S.
land grant universities has been instrumental in helping countries
around the world acquire the agricultural knowledge they need to
achieve food security. Through a comprehensive, multidisciplinary
approach that integrates research, teaching, and extension, USDA and
its university partners have improved the quality of life for millions
of people at home and abroad.
Question. What do you believe the role of USDA should be in
international agricultural development?
Answer. Although USDA does not have the lead in the U.S. Government
for agricultural development activities, USDA agencies contribute to
global agricultural development by providing agricultural capacity
building and technical assistance in an array of areas such as natural
resource management and conservation, plant and animal health, and
farming techniques. USDA can support technical assistance activities
within developing countries through the short and long-term assignments
of personnel from USDA agencies, State departments of agriculture, and
land grant universities.
USDA has a longstanding role in framing U.S. Government policy on
global food security with the Department of State and the U.S. Agency
for International Development. USDA also has a long tradition of
technical assistance and capacity building to help other countries
develop a productive agriculture sector in cooperation with host
governments, producers, and markets. USDA's expertise and institutional
resources, which serve as a reference for other countries and are among
the most sophisticated in the world, have been deployed to help
countries strengthen food security since the United States first
engaged in foreign assistance. USDA's institutional ties with
agribusiness, land grant universities, extension services, and
agricultural research centers are fully utilized in providing
international technical assistance for agricultural and rural
development. USDA's market development programs leverage additional
private-sector engagement in addressing food security.
wheat stem rust
Question. I am very concerned about the impact that cereal rust,
especially Ug99, will have on world hunger. Since 1999, Ug99 stem rust
has moved throughout East Africa to Yemen, and in 2007, was found in
Iran. The African stem rust--Ug99--has defeated nearly all major genes
for resistance currently deployed in the United States and around the
world. The wheat growers tell me that over 75 percent of wheat acreage
in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, representing 20 percent of world
production, is planted to susceptible varieties; areas that all of us
on this subcommittee are concerned about.
First, how have you used the $1.5 million the subcommittee provided
to ARS in last year's appropriation bill?
Answer. The goals of the USDA Ug99 Action Plan for the United
States are:
--Cereal Stem Rust Assessment and Pathology;
--Detection and Identification;
--Monitoring and Reporting;
--Germplasm Enhancement, Gene Discovery, and Development of Molecular
Markers;
--Regional Variety Development, Evaluation, and Implementation;
--Disease Management;
--Communication and Outreach.
Details on how Appropriations were used are provided for the
record.
[The information follows:]
Congress appropriated $1.5 million in fiscal year 2009 for Wheat
Stem Rust (Ug99). The focus was on Action Plan goals 1-5. Funding was
distributed as follows:
ARS Cereal Disease Laboratory, St. Paul, Minnesota--ARS cereal rust
disease experts at the laboratory are the world experts on
characterizing stem rust pathogens and are the only authorized
laboratory in the United States to work with Ug99. The Cereal Disease
Laboratory was provided $666,700. A portion of the new funds is being
used to handle expanded demands to identify resistant wheat and barley
germplasm and characterize unknown rust pathogens. New funding has been
used to identify and verify emerging rust biotypes, culture and
conserve live rust pathogens from foreign sources, and accurately
identify host-plant resistance in seedlings, and adult plant resistance
genes in collaborative research with U.S. wheat and barley breeders. A
specific cooperative agreement has been established to partner with the
University of Minnesota in pathogen screening and resistance breeding
in wheat and barley.
ARS Manhattan, Kansas, was provided $166,700 to combine three or
more highly effective Ug99 resistance genes into hard winter wheat
elite lines and deliver those to regional breeders and to identify
resistance genes in wild relatives of wheat and move those genes into
regional germplasm. A cooperative agreement was established with the
wheat genetics program at Kansas State University. The ARS Manhattan
location serves the Southern Great Plains Region that produces winter
wheat, which is prone to stem rust overwintering and can serve as a
source of stem rust spores for the central and northern Great Plains.
ARS Raleigh, North Carolina, was provided $333,300 to accelerate
breeding of Ug99 resistant winter wheat varieties in the Southeast,
genotype parent lines for regional breeders for adult plant resistance
to Ug99 and develop breeder-friendly DNA markers, partner with the
international centers CIMMYT and ICARDA in screening international
nurseries for Ug99 resistance, and coordinate screening of wheat lines
for U.S. breeders in Eastern Africa. The ARS Raleigh location serves
the Gulf Coast and Southeastern Region, another winter wheat region
(principally soft red winter wheat) which is prone to stem rust
overwintering, and can serve as a source of stem rust spores for the
Mississippi River Valley, the Upper Midwest, and the East Coast.
The ARS Small Grains and Potato Germplasm Research Unit, Aberdeen,
Idaho, was provided $194,400 to identify Ug99 resistance genes in land
races of the National Small Grains Collection and to support East
African screening, to expand molecular marker analysis of the
collection for rust resistance, and to enhance capacity of the
repository to ensure that resistant accessions are readily available
for U.S. wheat and barley breeders. The ARS Aberdeen location serves
the Western Region that produces western white wheat and barley.
The ARS Wheat Genetics Unit, Pullman, Washington, was provided
$138,900 to expand germplasm evaluation for western white wheat and
barley for stem and stripe rust resistance, expand genotyping for wheat
and barley breeders in the West and for the National Small Grains
Repository for stem rust resistance introgression, and to establish a
specific cooperative agreement with Washington State University for
barley resistance gene mapping.
An additional $1.0 million was appropriated in fiscal year 2010 for
Wheat Steam Rust (Ug99). The focus is on Action Plan goals 4-5. This is
in keeping with Congressional intent that the new funds be used for
development of stem rust resistant varieties, and for the overriding
need to get disease resistant varieties developed and deployed in the
most vulnerable regions of the United States. Emphasis has been placed
on U.S. regions that are most prone to stem rust development and
overwintering. In addition, we are emphasizing the protection of the
majority wheat market in the United States, that is, winter wheat (70
percent of all wheat grown in the United States). Ug99 protection of
barley is also targeted because Ug99 also attacks barley and can
overwinter on barley. Fiscal year 2010 funding was distributed as
follows:
The Southern Great Plains Region
ARS Manhattan, Kansas, was provided $270,000 to strengthen
identification of new sources of Ug99 genetic resistance for deployment
into hard red and white winter wheat. A combination of controlled
conditions and field research is focused on incorporating adult-plant
resistance into adapted genotypes in partnership with regional wheat
breeders. Portions of the funding are being used for specific
cooperative agreements with wheat breeding programs at Texas A&M
University, Oklahoma State University, Kansas State University, and
Colorado State University, to support development of new Ug99-resistant
wheat varieties.
ARS Lincoln, Nebraska, was provided $88,000 to develop Ug99-
resistant winter wheat and barley for the Great Plains. A portion of
the funds is being used for a specific cooperative agreement with the
University of Nebraska wheat breeding program.
The Gulf Coast and Southeastern Region
ARS Raleigh, North Carolina, was provided $259,000 to expand
identification, genotyping, and incorporation of adult-plant resistance
in soft red winter wheat and winter barley, including field locations
in Louisiana, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. A portion of the
funding will support specific cooperative agreements with wheat and
barley breeding programs at Louisiana State University, University of
Georgia, North Carolina State University, and Virginia Tech University.
The Northern Plains Region, which produces principally hard red
spring wheat and some barley, would be the primary ``recipient'' of
stem rust spores produced from the more southern States:
ARS Fargo, North Dakota, was provided $250,000 to identify and
breed Ug99 resistant genes from the wild relatives of wheat into
commercial wheat varieties, enhance genotyping for developing barley
germplasm with resistance to Ug99 for all U.S. barley breeding
programs, and to deploy Ug99 resistant genes into wheat and barley,
particularly for the Northern Plains. A portion of the funds will be
used for a specific cooperative agreement with the barley and wheat
breeding programs at North Dakota State University.
The Western Region
ARS Small Grains and Potato Germplasm Research Unit, Aberdeen,
Idaho, was provided $133,000 to accelerate efforts to develop Ug99-
resistant wheat and barley. This includes strengthening support for the
National Small Grains Collection to conserve accessions with cereal
rust resistance and to introgress stem rust resistance into western
barley germplasm.
Question. If Ug99 continues to spread, what will its impact be on
world food supplies?
Answer. The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)
estimates that 29 countries in East and North Africa, the Near East,
and Central and South Asia--which account for 37 percent of global
wheat production--have been affected by Ug99 or are at immediate risk.
ARS research in collaboration with the international wheat research
centers, CIMMYT and ICARDA, indicates that over 80 percent of the
world's wheat production is vulnerable to Ug99. Pakistan consumes 22
million tons of wheat annually and 35 percent of its citizens live
below the poverty line. Wheat varieties grown in Pakistan and
Afghanistan are completely vulnerable to Ug99 as are many varieties
grown in India. Ug99 losses have already caused at least a 30 percent
decrease in yield in Kenya. Small farmers who cannot afford fungicide
treatments especially suffer from Ug99 losses. Further spread of Ug99
would significantly reduce world grain supplies and could lead to grain
speculation and higher grain prices.
Question. How much will wheat production around the world suffer
and what will be its impact on world hunger needs?
Answer. Wheat represents approximately 30 percent of the world's
production of grain crops, and the impact of Ug99 losses will be
especially severe where wheat or barley is a major food staple. On
average, each person in the world consumes 68.2 kilograms of wheat each
year, about 630 calories per day per person, or one-half to one-third
of the minimal energy requirements of most adults. In North Africa and
in West and Central Asia, wheat provides more calories than all other
grains combined. Nearly one-half of the world's wheat production this
year will be harvested in developing countries. Currently, Middle
Eastern and North African countries consume over 150 percent of their
own wheat production and are heavily dependent on imports. In Sub-
Saharan Africa wheat is the number one urban food staple.
traditional production agriculture
Question. There is a growing perception among traditional
agriculture that USDA is willing to disparage conventionally produced
food to promote local production--creating a good food, bad food
distinction and distorting the perceptions of consumers across the
country.
How is the agency prepared to defend traditional production?
Is there any effort to include traditional production in the Know
Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative? If not, why not?
Answer. USDA supports agriculture through every agency in our
Department in a myriad of ways. USDA does not support nor does it
maintain any ``good food/bad food'' distinction. USDA continues to
defend U.S. farmers and agricultural products domestically and
overseas, while working to provide valuable safety net assistance to
farmers, sustain current markets, and promote new markets. USDA
utilizes its authorities to help keep our farmers on the farm and
sustain our rural communities, while helping them provide Americans and
persons around the world with a safe, affordable, and abundant food
supply. Two recent efforts will serve to highlight USDA's work on
behalf of traditional production agriculture. First, since February
2009, USDA expedited implementation of 2008 farm bill programs that had
not been implemented by the last administration, including the
Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), Livestock Forage Disaster Program
(LFP), Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) Program, and
Emergency Assistance for Livestock Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish
(ELAP). To date, more than $480 million has been disbursed to farmers
and ranchers under these major disaster programs. Notably, USDA
implemented the Dairy Economic Loss Assistance Program (DELAP) in only
60 days and has efficiently disbursed more than $270 million in
assistance to dairy farmers in dire need. Second, USDA is actively
working to support President Obama's National Export Initiative to help
rebuild the economy by increasing export opportunities. This year
alone, despite the sharp global economic downturn, USDA estimates that
agricultural exports will reach $100 billion. Production agriculture
will not only benefit from the National Export Initiative, it will also
benefit from a more informed and engaged consumer population.
The Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative is designed to
benefit all of American agriculture by facilitating a much-needed
national conversation about food, food production, and all that farmers
do to provide our food supply. One of the main goals of the initiative
is to better link consumers to the farmers they rely on for every meal.
An informed consumer that understands the capital investments and the
weather and other risks associated with farming is more likely to
support--or even act as an advocate for--traditional agriculture,
compared to a consumer who has lost touch with agriculture. The
initiative also seeks to foster new opportunities for all types of
farmers by supporting new markets created by the demand for local and
regional products. This will benefit rural communities as USDA
strengthens the link between rural economies and agriculture and helps
rural areas become economically sound, vibrant places to live. Examples
of existing operations that serve as a model for the Know Your Farmer,
Know Your Food effort include Illinois corn producers selling to a
tortilla company in Chicago and a group of Pacific Northwest wheat
farmers who have tripled their sales in the past 3 years by cooperating
under a brand label to produce flour that constitutes a personalized
product which can be easily traced back to its producers. We are taking
an inclusive approach to the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food effort,
and look for successful examples and insights from all over
agriculture.
crop insurance
Question. You're in the middle of the renegotiation of the Standard
Reinsurance Agreement (SRA) on crop insurance. As you know, the latest
draft proposes significant additional reductions from the industry
creating what most believe will be a significant deterioration of the
quality of products available to producers and potentially the number
of companies willing to offer crop insurance tools. How does USDA see
the system functioning as a part of the farm safety net if companies
cannot continue to offer crop insurance products to producers?
Answer. Under the new SRA, insurance companies can expect to earn a
reasonable rate of return, receive more stable payments, and have more
protection in bad years. Although some consolidation has occurred in
the Property and Casualty insurance industry generally, crop insurance
companies have fared proportionately better--a trend that is expected
to continue under the new SRA. In fact, in early March 2010 we expect
to welcome Occidental Fire and Casualty Company of North Carolina as
the newest participating company to sign the SRA. I believe the
imminent signing of Occidental, and the continued interest of
additional insurance companies, shows that this agreement is still a
very attractive business proposition that will serve the crop insurance
industry well for many years to come.
The changes that USDA has proposed in the most recent draft of the
SRA are justified for a variety of reasons. Administrative & Operating
(A&O) subsidy payments for 2006 were $959 million, a level that
motivated Congress to reduce the subsidy rate in the 2008 farm bill and
to direct USDA to seek further reductions through the renegotiation of
the SRA for 2011. Since 2006, there has been a 65 percent increase in
A&O subsidy payments to the insurance companies with no commensurate
increase in the number of policies sold.
Managing risk is critical for all producers and every farmer and
rancher deserves access to this important national program. However,
geographical differences in loss patterns have resulted in dramatic
differences in the concentration of companies and agents in the Corn
Belt States compared with most other parts of the country. The draft
SRA contains a number of features that are designed to expand the
availability of crop insurance to places where there are currently few
companies and agents selling policies, while ensuring that a high level
of service will be maintained for those who have come to depend on it.
The draft SRA rebalances the program's underwriting performance to
level the playing field across the United States. In addition, it seeks
to expand the availability of crop insurance by providing insurance
companies with additional financial incentives to service those areas,
producers, and operations that lack the product availability and
quality service that many of the Corn Belt States currently enjoy. The
draft agreement will provide the non-Corn Belt States with higher
reference prices which will lead to higher A&O subsidies for these
lesser-served States. Additionally, the draft SRA contains a provision
to give back a portion of the Net Book Quota Share to those insurance
companies that sell and service the lesser-served States. Together,
these provisions will provide financial incentives for companies to
foster enhanced service in lesser-served areas.
healthy food financing initiative
Question. As a part of the First Lady's ``Let's Move!'' campaign to
address childhood obesity, the President's budget includes a $400
million government-wide request for the Healthy Food Financing
Initiative. USDA's part of this initiative is $50 million in direct
appropriations that will support more than $150 million in loans,
grants, and market promotion programs. I agree that far too many of our
youth lead sedentary lifestyles and live in areas where less nutritious
food is the first choice for a snack because fruits and vegetables are
not easily found.
Would you provide additional information on the overall initiative
and USDA's specific role?
Answer. The Healthy Food Financing Initiative will promote a range
of interventions that expand access to nutritious foods, including
developing and equipping grocery stores and other small businesses and
retailers selling healthy food in communities that currently lack these
options. Residents of these communities, which are sometimes called
``food deserts'' and are often found in economically distressed areas,
are typically served by fast food restaurants and convenience stores
that offer little or no fresh produce. Lack of healthy, affordable food
options can lead to higher levels of obesity and other diet-related
diseases, such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.
Through the new multi-year Healthy Food Financing Initiative and by
engaging with the private sector, the administration will work to
eliminate food deserts across the country within 7 years. With the
first year of funding, the administration's initiative will leverage
enough investments to begin expanding healthy food options into as many
as one-fifth of the Nation's food deserts and create thousands of jobs
in urban and rural communities across the Nation.
USDA's proposed 2011 budget includes a funding level of $50 million
that will support more than $150 million in public and private
investments in the form of loans, grants, and promotion, and other
programs designed to create healthy food options in food deserts across
the country. Of that:
--$35 million in fiscal year 2011 discretionary funding is to remain
available until September 30, 2012 for the Secretary to use for
financial and technical assistance.
--$15 million in funds shall be made available for technical or
financial assistance and shall come from a set aside of up to
10 percent of the funds made available through programs
outlined in the budget request.
Of the $50 million requested for USDA's component of the Healthy
Food Financing Initiative, $15 million would be made available for
technical or financial assistance and would come from a list of
relevant programs outlined in the budget request. These funds would
remain in the respective agencies and within the designated programs
and would not be transferred to any other account. The program dollars
set aside for the HFFI would be used to support strategies for
addressing the healthy food needs.
HFFI projects may require a combination of grants, loans and/or
technical assistance, so this effort will require close coordination
among USDA agencies to ensure that dollars are leveraged and used
wisely. Coordination will occur throughout the process of announcing
and selecting projects and where appropriate may include the use of
consolidated solicitation and application processes to ensure the most
worthy projects are identified and funded.
The Agricultural Marketing Service, Rural Development, and the
Office of the Secretary will work together to ensure that expertise
within USDA is appropriately leveraged. AMS has considerable knowledge
and expertise enhancing food access for low income populations and
improving retail market access for small and mid-sized producers. Rural
Development has significant expertise funding and supporting
infrastructure development for purposes of economic development.
Together, the two agencies, working in concert with the Office of
the Secretary, will make funding available to provide:
--technical assistance to grantees to help them with facility design,
and distribution logistics, and food marketing;
--grants, loans, and loan guarantees in support of business and
infrastructure development and investment; and
--administrative support of HFFI and project evaluation.
Question. I understand that the Department of Treasury and the
Department of Health and Human Services are also involved in this
initiative, can you speak briefly to their role and how their programs
are expected to complement USDA's efforts?
Answer. Through the joint initiative, which was included in the
President's budget for 2011, Treasury, USDA, and HHS would make
available more than $400 million in financial and technical assistance
to community development financial institutions, other nonprofits, and
businesses with sound strategies for addressing the healthy food needs
of communities. The initiative will make available a mix of Federal tax
credits, below-market rate loans, loan guarantees, and grants to
attract private sector capital that will more than double the total
investment. Federal funds will support projects ranging from the
construction or expansion of a grocery store to smaller-scale
interventions such as placing refrigerated units stocked with fresh
produce in convenience stores.
Each of the three agencies brings a particular expertise and set of
resources to the Healthy Food Financing Initiative. Specifically:
--The Department of Agriculture specializes in improving access to
healthy foods through nutrition assistance programs, creating
business opportunities for America's farmers, and promoting
economic development in rural areas. USDA's proposed funding
level of $50 million will support more than $150 million in
public and private investments in the form of loans, grants,
promotion, and other programs that can provide financial and
technical assistance to enhance access to healthy foods in
underserved communities, expand demand and retail outlets for
farm products, and increase the availability of locally and
regionally produced foods. USDA has a solid track record of
supporting successful farmers markets, and has also invested in
grocery stores and creating agricultural supply chains for
them, such as in the People's Grocery project in Oakland, CA.
--The Treasury Department will support private sector financing of
healthy foods options in distressed urban and rural
communities. Through the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) and
financial assistance to Treasury-certified community
development financial institutions (CDFIs), Treasury has a
proven track record in expanding access to nutritious foods by
catalyzing private sector investment. The Healthy Food
Financing Initiative builds on that track record, with $250
million in authority for the NMTC and $25 million for financial
assistance to CDFIs devoted to helping finance healthy food
options.
--The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) specializes in
community-based efforts to improve the economic and physical
health of people in distressed areas. HHS will dedicate up to
$20 million in Community Economic Development program funds to
the Healthy Food Financing Initiative. Through the CED program,
HHS will award competitive grants to Community Development
Corporations to support projects that finance grocery stores,
farmers markets, and other sources of fresh nutritious food.
These projects will serve the dual purposes of facilitating
access to healthy food options while creating job and business
development opportunities in low-income communities,
particularly since grocery stores often serve as anchor
institutions in commercial centers.
Question. I am concerned that the budget request asks the Committee
to eliminate any legal requirements regarding ``eligibility, area
served, and size of loan'' when funding this program without a clear
explanation of why this is necessary.
Answer. Food deserts exist in both rural and urban areas.
Successfully addressing the multi-faceted problem of food deserts will
take a concerted effort by all sectors of society and requires the
unique combination of financial and technical assistance proposed in
the Healthy Food Financing Initiative. The statutory requirements of
several of the programs included in the initiative include several
provisions that would impede the initiative, for example, limitations
to rural areas, or areas less than a certain level, and loan limits
below those necessary to serve large projects in urban areas. Rather
than asking for a broad repeal of these limitations, USDA is asking for
the discretionary authority to eliminate them only for the HFFI.
Question. Would you explain the intent of this request and provide
examples of how USDA's current authority prohibits full implementation
of the Healthy Food Financing Initiative as envisioned?
Answer. The community facility programs are limited rural
communities and towns of less than 20,000 population and the business
and industry loan program is limited to rural areas of less than
50,000. The statutory limit on the loans to intermediaries under the
Intermediary Relending Program is $2 million, regardless of the number
of ultimate recipients they serve, and the statutory limit on loans to
rural microentrepreneurs under the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance
Programs is $50,000. While these limits may be adequate to serving
projects in rural areas, they would preclude reaching out to urban
areas that can best be served by larger projects, such as the recently
constructed grocery store that is now serving the Anacostia area of
Washington, DC.
Question. Under what circumstances would the Department overlook
eligibility requirements when making grants and loans?
Answer. Projects under the HFFI would be expected to meet other
statutory and regulatory requirements for the programs used to provide
financing. In short, they would need to show that they are competitive
with other applications for these programs, except for those
requirements that would be waived.
single family housing loans
Question. Because traditional home loans are increasingly difficult
to secure, USDA's single family housing guaranteed loan program has
become an attractive alternative for those seeking to purchase a home
in rural America. I understand USDA has been guaranteeing around $2
billion worth of loans per month--a staggering amount. The fiscal year
2010 appropriations bill provided funding to guarantee $12 billion in
single family housing loans.
Would you provide an update on this program? Is current funding
sufficient to meet demand in fiscal year 2010?
Answer. Like all of the Rural Development programs, funding is not
determined by demand. These are discretionary programs with a set level
of funding as provided by Congress. In 2010, RD will obligate the full
funding level provided by Congress in the 2010 appropriations. We
should note that there is frequently a greater demand than available
funding for below market financing. Just as there can be a backlog in
the Water and Wastewater program, so can there be a backlog in any of
the RD programs, including 502 Guarantees.
Fiscal year 2010 has had some specific challenges that have
aggravated demand lately. Due to this strong demand arising from the
housing and economic crisis, and the success of our program across the
country, the private sector remains reluctant to make home loans absent
Government backing. Also, in some areas the Rural Development SFH
guaranteed program is the only financing available. Until the crisis,
the guaranteed loan program historically obligated about $3 billion
each fiscal year. The crisis pushed obligations to a record $6.9
billion in fiscal year 2008 and to another record $16.2 billion during
fiscal year 2009. The $16.2 billion obligated in fiscal year 2009
included substantial funding from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) which provided about $10 billion for
the program.
The guaranteed loan program received almost $12 billion in program
level from the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill. In addition, ARRA
funding in the amount of $1.1 billion carried over from fiscal year
2009. We are continuing to monitor the level of demand for the program
and will keep the committees informed of the status.
Question. To help ease the burden on the program and give the
Department authority to guarantee more loans, the budget request
includes a proposal to charge an annual 0.5 percent fee to lenders,
which is consistent with the operation of HUD's FHA loan program. This
fee will make the single family housing program essentially a ``no
cost'' program allowing the Department to guarantee loans without
appropriated funds supporting the loan level.
Do you expect lenders to pass this fee on to borrowers? If so, do
you have an estimate for how much the monthly payment for borrowers
will increase?
Answer. We expect lenders to pass the annual fee on to borrowers,
the same way as is done for FHA loans. The annual fee will be capped at
0.5 percent and in fiscal year 2011 is expected to be 0.15 percent of
the guaranteed principal loan amount. On a $100,000 loan, the annual
fee will be $150. This results in an additional monthly payment of
$12.50. This is a nominal increase and should be affordable.
Question. In addition to the fee proposal, the budget also includes
language that will allow lenders to directly issue loan guarantees on
behalf of USDA. This proposal is consistent with FHA and VA loan
programs. Why are you seeking this change now?
Answer. Direct endorsement will streamline the loan making process
and achieve a measure of consistency with the Federal housing programs.
Some private sector lending partners have repeatedly requested direct
endorsement capabilities. Also, this will make the agency more
efficient and allow the single family housing staff to focus more on
single family housing direct loans.
Question. USDA's loan portfolio is much stronger and has a lower
default percentage than traditional loans and loans guaranteed by other
government agencies. We would like to maintain the Department's
outstanding record. Does giving a 3rd party authority to issue these
loans put USDA's portfolio at risk? What does USDA plan to do to make
sure this change does not put the portfolio at risk?
Answer. We expect the current excellent portfolio credit quality
will be maintained. The intent is to limit direct endorsement to
lenders that have demonstrated strong program knowledge and
responsibility. Only well performing lenders would be given direct
endorsement capabilities, and they would be closely monitored on a post
closing basis. Lenders with direct endorsement would have to submit
their loans through Rural Development's automated underwriting system.
Loans receiving an ``accept'' from the automated underwriting system
have demonstrated better performance than loans which are manually
underwritten.
regional innovation initiative
Question. The budget request unveils a new program called the
Regional Innovation Initiative. Funding for this program comes from a 5
percent tap to existing rural development, Agricultural Marketing
Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and forestry programs
which are not under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. Through
these taps the Department expects to generate $280 million in loans and
grants for this initiative. The goal of the initiative is to ``promote
economic opportunity and job creation in rural communities through
increased regional planning among Federal, State, local and private
entities.''
While I recognize that regional planning can be beneficial, I am
concerned that the budget and your testimony lacks sufficient details
describing how this program will be implemented, especially since the
budget proposes to redirect 5 percent of programs that are either
generally oversubscribed or not under the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee. Does USDA currently have sufficient authority to allow
the inclusion of these regional innovation grants and loans in the
programs you propose to tap?
Answer. USDA has a series of programs that are already oriented
toward regional economic development. These programs include broadband
loans administered by the Rural Utilities Service, the Community Food
System Program administered by NIFA, and the Rural Business Opportunity
Grant (RBOG) program. USDA has expertise with regional economic
development, but we believe our overall economic development activities
can be better targeted toward the goals of this initiative.
RBOG is one example of an oversubscribed regional economic
development program. Created in the 1996 farm bill, this program
provides grants to nonprofit organizations, public bodies, and tribes
for strategic technical assistance, training, and planning activities
that promote ``best practices'' in sustainable rural economic
development. The 2009 RBOG program yielded dozens of regional
applications, including 21 multi-State applications. Because of our
funding level, Rural Development simply couldn't fund most of these
applications. We believe that this program holds great promise for the
early steps in regional economic development of planning and
collaboration.
RBOG grantees will be just one of a variety of regional
organizations that USDA has supported through the Rural Development
Mission Area. Others include Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities,
and Champion Communities; Rural Economic Area Partnership, or REAP,
zones; the Delta Regional Authority, and the Appalachian Regional
Commission; and organizations with cooperative agreements with Rural
Development around certain priority areas, such as food systems or
economic diversification in regions dominated by a National Forest.
Rural Development will focus additional outreach and technical
assistance on these groups, as well as monitoring for results under the
Department's commitments to OMB's High Priority Performance Goals
process.
In addition, Rural Development already has undertaken two
significant efforts toward the Department's larger regional strategy.
First, a team has been assembled in headquarters to begin reviewing all
Rural Development programs, starting with those identified for
inclusion in the regional provisions of the President's 2011 budget, to
ensure that agency regulations and application evaluation criteria do
not disadvantage applicants seeking financing of a regional project.
Where necessary, the Administrators of Rural Housing Service, Rural
Utilities Service, and Rural Business--Cooperative Service will propose
regulatory modifications.
Second, Rural Development's 47 State directors have been tasked
with developing more active working relationships with other Federal
and State partners to assist in recruiting regional projects, beginning
with the food system arena, where an existing statutory set-aside of 5
percent of budget authority in the Business and Industry Loan Guarantee
program offers priority to projects that benefit rural, tribal, or
urban food deserts. The Rural Development State Director might defer to
a HUD financing strategy for a grocery store in an urban food desert,
but still finance a produce distribution facility or meat processing
facility in a rural area that would help supply the new urban grocery
store as well as other surrounding retail outlets. With most other
Federal agencies appointing multi-State regional representatives, Rural
Development also has grouped its State directors into four regions
coinciding with those of the Regional Rural Development Centers under
the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
To the extent that authority already exists, the initiative is
designed to utilize the statutory authorities for on-going programs. In
the case of grants for regional planning activities, the Rural Business
Opportunity Grant (RBOG) program would be utilized because the
statutory authority for that program to grant to conduct ``regional,
community, and local economic development planning and coordination,
and leadership development.''
Question. For loan and grant purposes, how do you intend to define
areas that are ``engaged in regional innovation''?
Answer. The areas are to be self-defined based on the documentation
of an applicant's participation in regional planning activities.
Question. How do you plan to measure success for this program?
Answer. The work will be done by the Community and Economic
Development staff in Rural Development, initially as part of the OMB
High Priority Performance Goal process, with additional staff support
from other USDA agencies and eventually other Departments with programs
offering regional opportunities. The 2011 budget proposal provides this
work will be done by the Office of Regional Innovation, which would be
housed within Rural Development.
Rural Development will apply the existing standards and scoring
criteria of the RBOG regulation to applicants in 2010. The process for
selecting grant recipients will be competitive and transparent. In
addition, the Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) asks all applicants
to demonstrate: clear regional leadership; evidence of broad
participation, including demographic diversity within the region; and
evidence of broad collaboration among Federal, State, and local
government agencies, private for-profit and non-profit firms,
universities, and philanthropic organizations, including both their
participation in and financial support of the project. The NOFA
recruits applications focused on economic opportunities in rural
America: addressing end users in regional broadband projects; regional
food system projects; regional renewable energy projects; projects
demonstrating innovative use of natural resources to expand business
opportunities; and projects designed to attract new equity capital into
rural areas.
There are program performance measures already established for each
of the programs included in the initiative, for example, the number of
jobs created or saved. It is anticipated that these measures will show
high program performance in areas with regional innovation than those
without such activities. Other measures may also be developed and
program participants will be required to participate in the monitoring
of performance.
snap
Question. Currently, 38 million people participate in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a record high level
of participation driven primarily by the poor economy and unemployment.
The budget proposal suggests that the final participation number for
fiscal year 2010 will be more than 40 million participants with an
unemployment rate of 10.1 percent. For fiscal year 2011, the Department
estimates that 43 million people will participate in the program and
unemployment will be 9.5 percent, a drop of 0.6 percent from the
previous year's estimate. Given that unemployment is usually a strong
indicator of SNAP participation and that the Department estimates
unemployment will drop in fiscal year 2011, what is driving the
participation estimate up by 3 million participants to more than 43
million people? Is there an underlying factor that is not explained by
the unemployment rate?
Answer. SNAP participation is driven to a large extent by the
national unemployment rate. However, the relationship between the two
elements contains an inherent lag with SNAP participation growth
lagging increases in the unemployment rate. Therefore, a decline in
SNAP participation may not occur until well after the end of the
recession and drop in unemployment.
voluntary public access and habitat incentive program
Question. What is the status of the Voluntary Public Access and
Habitat Incentive Program?
Answer. The Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program
regulation is currently under review. Our plan is to have this
regulation published in the Federal Register later this spring.
discrimination claims
Question. Mr. Secretary, the President recently submitted a request
for $1.150 billion to settle discrimination claims brought by Black
farmers. Unfortunately there are similar claims of discrimination by
other groups (women, Native Americans, and Hispanics).
What can you tell us about these other claims?
Will they be settled in the near future?
What is the potential liability of the Federal Government?
What is being done to prevent future discrimination?
Answer. I am committed to trying to resolve all farmers' claims of
discrimination, including the claims of women (Love), Native Americans
(Keepseagle), and Hispanic (Garcia) farmers.
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) are currently reviewing all available options in order to
establish a path forward that will resolve all of the major cases
pending before USDA. We are currently involved in confidential
settlement discussions involving these cases. Consequently, all
litigation has been stayed. Because of the confidential nature of the
discussions, it is difficult for me to offer specifics on potential
liability.
All farmers and all of USDA's customers should be treated fairly
and equally. I remain absolutely committed to that principle and have
made it a top priority for the Department. On April 21, 2009, I
published a civil rights statement that noted, ``This is a new day for
Equal Employment Opportunity, program delivery, and civil rights in
USDA. I intend to lead the Department in correcting its past errors,
learning from its mistakes, and moving forward to a new era of
equitable service and access for all.'' As we work to resolve all of
the major cases pending before USDA, I will be guided by those
commitments and will seek a just and equitable outcome for the various
groups of individuals who believe they have suffered from
discrimination.
To prevent future disparate treatment, USDA is undertaking several
proactive measures which should decrease the filing of discrimination
complaints. These measures include an independent assessment of program
delivery, increased emphasis on outreach to socially disadvantaged and
small and beginning farmers through the establishment of the Office of
Advocacy and Outreach, reviewing findings of discrimination by the
Office of Human Resources Management to determine if adverse actions
are warranted and increased training for employees in civil rights.
In April 2009, USDA published a Request for Proposals to obtain an
independent analysis of access to program delivery at the Farm Service
Agency, Rural Development, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and
the Risk Management Agency. After approximately 7 months of field
interviews of USDA employees as well as gathering feedback from USDA
customers, a thorough report will be provided to the USDA that lists
specific recommendations and methodologies the Department can adopt to
ensure programs are delivered equitably and fairly. These
recommendations will ensure that access is afforded to all
constituents, including socially disadvantaged farmers, ranchers, and
rural America.
The Office of Human Resources Management under Departmental
Management has been delegated responsibility for the establishment of
an initiative to review all settlement agreements and decisions in
program, individual, and employee complaints of discrimination. This
initiative will ensure the highest level of accountability and fiscal
responsibility is maintained within the USDA.
Key components of the initiative are as follows:
--Review of all settlement agreements and decisions finding liability
against the Agency in program, individual, and employee
complaints of discrimination.
--Investigations or inquiries to determine responsibility for the
actions or inactions leading to Agency liability.
--Appropriate administrative actions to correct future conduct.
--Increased awareness of individuals in decision-making positions to
make responsible decisions.
--Improvements in programs to ensure that all services are available
in a nondiscriminatory manner.
--Hold USDA personnel accountable and responsible for their actions.
This last mandate will ensure that USDA employees at all levels
will be held accountable for ensuring that all USDA applicants,
customers, constituents, and stakeholders, as well as employees, are
provided equal access to USDA opportunities, programs, and services.
The initiative to review settlement agreements and decisions in
program, individual, and employee complaints of discrimination will be
instrumental in improving civil rights and making USDA a model
department.
Additionally, all employees are required to take annual EEO
training, in conjunction with the Department issuing the annual notice
on discrimination. Finally, the Secretary and Assistant Secretary for
Civil Rights have regularly given speeches and issued correspondence
regarding civil rights, EEO, diversity, and the consequences of
violating the civil rights of individuals, employees, and USDA
customers.
The 2008 farm bill authorized the creation of the Office of
Advocacy and Outreach'' (OAO), which was established under the
Assistant Secretary for Administration on November 3, 2009. This action
brought together outreach, advocacy and scholarship programs which were
scattered throughout the USDA. The Office is in the process of
obtaining staff, implementing grant and scholarship programs, and
assembling two Advisory Committees--the Small and Beginning Farmer and
Rancher Advisory Committee and the Minority Farmer Advisory Committee
are being assembled. The Office is also developing accountability
systems such as a receipt for services and the Program Participation
Initiative that will track service to landowners by race, ethnicity and
gender.
OAO will work with all USDA agencies to develop a comprehensive
Departmental Outreach Plan to guide future activities of USDA. OAO is
also charged with conducting a review of all rules and regulations in
USDA to assess barriers to full participation in USDA programs by
underserved groups.
The creation of OAO as a distinct entity in the Department will
place heightened emphasis on making USDA programs accessible to all.
The mission of OAO is ``to increase access to programs of the
Department and increase the viability and profitability of small farms
and ranches, beginning farmers or ranchers, and socially disadvantaged
farmers or ranchers.''
Finally, I have directed all USDA political appointees to receive
civil rights training. The Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights is
providing the same civil rights training to senior managers in the
field offices at the Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and Rural Development, especially in those States
where USDA agencies report significant numbers of program
discrimination complaints. In a video-taped message to training
participants, I emphasized the importance of implementing USDA's civil
rights policy and reminded attendees of their responsibility to ensure
USDA constituents have full and equitable access to USDA programs and
services. The civil rights training includes a historical perspective
of civil rights at USDA, employment and program complaint processing,
dispute resolution, civil rights compliance, and diversity. To date,
trainings have been conducted in New York, Texas, Louisiana New Mexico,
Florida and Oregon.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
catfish inspection program
Question. Secretary Vilsack, the administration's budget request
recommends a decrease of $10.3 million for the catfish inspection
program under the Food Safety Inspection Service. The farm bill was
very clear that regulations for this program be completed within 18
months of passage of the farm bill. Can you elaborate on this budget
request and inform the subcommittee when you expect the Department of
Agriculture to both release the regulations and begin implementation of
this program?
Answer. We believe that the $5 million requested for catfish
inspection is adequate to meet essential program needs in fiscal year
2011. The draft proposed rule is currently under review. In the
meantime, FSIS is working diligently in order to develop the foundation
needed to assume catfish inspection responsibilities upon
implementation of a final rule.
Question. In the President's budget request for the Catfish
Inspection Program, the administration notes a ``need for considerable
stakeholder engagement.'' What is the Department doing to engage
stakeholders?
Answer. Upon publication of the proposed rule, USDA will seek
public comments on the proposed rule. In addition, USDA plans to hold
three public meetings on the proposed rule, which will likely take
place in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Washington, DC. We are developing
significant outreach and communication plans for both domestic and
foreign stakeholders to commence once the proposed rule is published.
the food, conservation, and energy act of 2008
Question. Mr. Secretary, the administration's fiscal year 2011
budget submission includes proposals that require opening up and
amending the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. I have
concerns about the implications of amending a farm law that was 2 years
in development and which still has not been fully implemented. I would
like to know your thoughts about the possible undermining of confidence
in farm policy and the adverse impact on the rural economy that would
result if Congress makes significant changes to farm law before its
scheduled expiration?
Answer. I feel that the President's budget proposals regarding
``payment limits'' and ``Adjusted Gross Income'' criteria actually
strengthen confidence in U.S. farm policy, rather than undermine it. By
focusing farm program payments to those most in need, and working to
reduce the additional $12 trillion in debt that has accumulated since
the beginning of the decade, we are working to ensure that Federal
funds are being spent wisely.
The Department provides a strong set of financial safety net
programs to ensure the continued economic viability and productivity of
production agriculture, including farm income and commodity support
programs, crop insurance and disaster assistance, as well as other
programs. The farm safety net is critically important and provides the
foundation for economic prosperity in rural America. For 2011, USDA
estimates that roughly $17 billion in total direct support will be
provided to farm producers and landowners through a variety of
programs.
Recognizing the need to reduce the deficit, the budget proposes to
better target direct payments to those who need and can benefit from
them most as well as cap total payments paid to larger operations. The
savings from these proposals will impact approximately 30,000 program
participants, which is about 2 percent of the 1.3 million total program
participants, and will over time comprise less than 2 percent of the
total direct support the Department expects to provide annually to farm
producers and landowners.
pigford ii settlement
Question. Mr Secretary, in regards to the Pigford II settlement,
thousands of the farmers that have claims against the USDA are from
Mississippi. I hope this settlement will resolve these claims in a fair
way that is consistent with the court rulings rendered in these cases.
I am told that under the settlement agreement, between 4.1 percent and
7.4 percent of the appropriated funds will be spent on attorney's fees.
Can you tell me how USDA derived these percentages?
Answer. Subject to court approval, the parties have agreed to a
range of attorneys' fees that will be not less than 4.1 percent but not
more than 7.4 percent of the total amount of funds available for the
settlement minus any money spent to implement the non-judicial claims
process established in the agreement. Although the agreement permits
plaintiffs to move for a fee award of 7.4 percent, the Agreement
expressly provides that the Secretary can respond to plaintiffs' fee
petition and argue to the Court that the Fee Award should be limited to
4.1 percent. The parties arrived at this structure through arms-length
negotiation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
dairy
Question. I would like to stay on the topic of dairy and speak
about cattle health. The health of cattle also can suffer during these
economically challenging times for dairy farmers. Less income means
less money spent on preventative care and waiting longer to take care
of a sick animal. This not only can affect the farmer's bottom line,
but it also may affect human health.
What is the USDA doing to ensure the health of our Nation's dairy
cattle?
Answer. APHIS conducts a variety of activities to protect the
health, quality, and marketability or our Nation's animals. These
activities include surveillance to quickly identify diseased animals,
and emergency response capabilities that allow for the Agency to
provide leadership, strategies, and resources for effective emergency
response and management. These activities help to minimize exposure of
animals to diseases that negatively impact producers.
APHIS also assists States and producers with developing approaches
for disease management of cattle herds by providing technical
assistance. For example, APHIS has provided assistance to States and
producers in developing and implementing their Johne's disease
management, testing, and monitoring strategies for use in controlling
the disease in cattle herds. APHIS also remains vigilant in protecting
herds from economically significant animal diseases, such as
brucellosis and tuberculosis, through effective control and eradication
programs.
not-ready-to-eat poultry products
Question. On December 21 of last year Senator Snowe and I sent a
letter (attached) to you regarding our concerns about the process for
new regulations being promulgated by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) for certain Not-Ready-to-Eat poultry products without
employing the traditional rulemaking process as outlined in the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA). This important issue affects a
number of producers across the country, including Barber Foods, a Maine
company employing 750 people.
It is my understanding that FSIS will make a significant change in
agency policy on regulation of Not-Ready-to-Eat poultry products which
appear Ready-to-Eat. Specifically, FSIS is considering a change which
would declare Salmonella to be an adulterant and would require non-
detectable levels of Salmonella in Not-Ready-to-Eat poultry products
which appear Ready-to-Eat.
A change in agency policy to regulate the presence of Salmonella in
these products as an adulterant would reverse the long-standing policy
of FSIS and establish a new precedent. Under the APA, changes to long-
standing agency policies are to be made through formal rulemaking
procedures.
Let me be very clear that the safety of our Nation's food supply is
of paramount importance, and I am not commenting on the merits of the
regulation change. I encourage FSIS to take all necessary steps to
improve the safety of our food supply. Even the most important policy
goals, however, must be implemented in accordance with the procedures
established by law.
Since I have yet to receive a response to my letter, I wanted to
take this opportunity to ask you what specific steps FSIS is taking to
make sure any regulatory change for Not-Ready-to-Eat poultry products
which appear Ready-to-Eat are made in accordance with APA requirements?
Answer. The problem of Salmonella in not-ready-to-eat (NRTE)
stuffed poultry that appears to be ready-to-eat (RTE) is longstanding.
There is a history of consumers purchasing the product, treating it as
though it were RTE, and then getting sick. For more than a decade we
have worked with companies making these NRTE products to identify and
implement strategies that will result in a safer product.
Unfortunately, despite our efforts, the problem persists.
We are committed to ensuring that any decisions about these
products will be made in an open and transparent manner. Accordingly,
please be assured that as USDA moves forward in this effort, we will
provide ample opportunity for industry and, indeed, all interested
parties to comment on any actions that FSIS tentatively determines are
necessary to protect the public health. Ample time will also be allowed
for the companies involved to implement any actions that FSIS may
decide to require. We must all be aware, however, that while we work
with companies to identify actions likely to be most effective, people
continue to risk becoming ill from these products.
congressionally direct spending
Question. For all congressionally direct spending, please provide
for each: a funding history, all ultimate funding recipients, a
statement of goals and accomplishments, any assessments made on funding
amounts and how those funds were used.
Answer. The information is submitted for the record.
[The information follows:]
Special Research Grants
advancing biofuel production, texas
The research under this project is being conducted at Texas A&M
University and Baylor University. The goal of the proposed project is
to enhance understanding of crop composition on bioenergy conversion,
using sorghum as a model dedicated energy crop. Understanding the
composition of this crop and its effect on conversion efficiency is
crucial to the development of alternative energy sources. From the
Texas A&M University sorghum program, biomass samples from different
sorghum types grown under different agronomic practices were produced,
dried, ground, and provided to Baylor University personnel. Samples
continue to be analyzed for potential conversion to biofuels. The
analysis focuses on the sugar composition using a protocol developed
specifically for the analysis.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $148,950; for fiscal year 2009,
$140,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $300,000. The total amount
appropriated is $588,950.
Research activities to complete the objectives began in 2008.
Samples of sorghum have been produced and are currently being analyzed
to address the original objectives to analyze water-soluble materials
in sorghum, investigate the optimal conversion technology and operation
conditions for conversion into biofuel, and evaluate the existing
germplasm and continued breeding programs to develop sorghum varieties.
The NIFA National Program Leader has had discussions with the
principal investigator from Texas A&M University. A site visit to
Baylor University is planned for 2010.
advanced genetic technologies, kentucky
This research focuses on developing the infrastructure needed to
initiate advanced genetic technologies used in the study of
agriculturally relevant plants, animals, and microbes. The research
will integrate the modern laboratory methods of large-scale DNA
sequencing with computational methods to interpret DNA sequences and
identify genes and key features of genomes. Pilot studies will be
conducted to obtain sequences from an important symbiont of tall
fescue, the most widely planted forage grass in the United States, and
also from an important horse parasite. Other pilot studies will be
invited and pursued as appropriate.
The results of this research will enhance techniques of genetic
analysis, and through such techniques, increased understanding of
genomes of plants, fungal symbionts of plants, and animal parasites.
The techniques developed by this research will enable genome sequencing
for numerous microorganisms that are pathogenic or symbiotic with
agricultural plants and livestock in the local environment. The project
will support the training of students and post-docs for work in the
life science and computer science.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2001, and the
following amounts have been appropriated: in fiscal year 2001,
$473,955; in fiscal year 2002, $600,000; in fiscal year 2003, $670,613;
in fiscal year 2004, $600,436; in fiscal year 2005, $644,800; in fiscal
year 2006, $638,550; in fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008,
$480,612; in fiscal year 2009, $452,000; and fiscal year 2010,
$650,000. The total amount appropriated is $5,210,966.
The research is being conducted at the agricultural experiment
station maintained by the University of Kentucky.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
The submitting institution conducts a peer review of the proposal prior
to submission.
aegilops cylindrica (jointed goatgrass), washington
The purpose of this initiative is to investigate the biomass and
bioproduct potential of plants that are typically classified as weeds
when they invade land used for growing crops. Weedy plants have traits
that allow them to compete successfully for resources and to grow
rapidly. An issue related to biomass production is whether traits
derived from weedy plants might be used to augment production of
biomass crops and/or whether weedy plants might be developed into
biomass crops. The goal with Aegilops cylindrica, or jointed goatgrass,
is to determine whether the robust growth of jointed goatgrass-wheat
hybrids might make these hybrids or related plants that carry some of
their traits useful in dryland areas. These hybrids are annuals and
almost completely sterile so if the hybrids themselves were used as a
biomass crop, there would not be a significant control problem. Three
other weedy plants also will be investigated. Research on a hybrid
poplar will determine whether it is possible to reroute significant
amounts of carbon from the phenylpropanoid pathway that generates
lignin precursors to other phenolic compounds that might be used as
high-value biofuels. The ability to divert carbon from lignin into a
valuable commodity would be especially useful in lignified biomass
crops like poplar, which is an invasive tree well suited to the Pacific
Northwest. Arundo donax, or giant reed, is an invasive and fast-growing
grass, and various photosynthetic parameters will be investigated to
determine why light harvesting or carbon allocation is so efficient.
There is a good control plan in place for experimental plantings that
rely on water limitation and herbicide application to eliminate the
plant when necessary. Lactuca serriola, or prickly lettuce, will be
evaluated to determine if it is possible to increase the quantity or
quality of the latex compounds in the sap. There have been recent
advances in gene mapping in this plant, and the focus may be on the
weed itself but an alternative might be to take the genes responsible
for isoprenoid polymerization to latex and move them into an alternate
plant.
Previous work with jointed goatgrass focused on controlling
invasion into wheat fields. The research has been a success. Scientists
developed cultural practices to suppress this weed and combined these
practices with a technology to allow elimination of jointed goatgrass
by application of a herbicide during cultivation of a herbicide-
resistant wheat developed for this project. Now that goatgrass can be
controlled, progress has been made by gathering hybrids and probable
parental plants from several locations for fiber analysis and by
producing better defined crosses in greenhouses to generate the needed
amount of hybrid seed for field testing. Preliminary experiments with
giant reed have shown an impressive growth rate and extremely high rate
of carbon dioxide assimilation. Prickly lettuce species and biotypes
have been surveyed for latex quality and quantity; and matings have
been carried out to develop populations for mapping productivity
traits, and genetic markers are being screened. The research on poplar
continues with cloning high capacity genes for using the
phenylpropanoid pathway to reroute carbon flux to aromatic monomers.
The initial work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $329,000; for fiscal years
1995 1997, $296,000 each year; $346,000 for fiscal year 1998; $360,000
each year in fiscal years 1999 and 2000; $359,208 in fiscal year 2001;
$367,000 in fiscal year 2002; $380,511 in fiscal year 2003; $340,976 in
fiscal year 2004; $355,136 in fiscal year 2005; $351,450 in fiscal year
2006; $0 in fiscal year 2007; $261,159 in fiscal year 2008; and
$245,000 per year in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Total appropriations
are $5,188,440.
This work is being carried out at Washington State University.
This project has been previously peer reviewed for scientific merit
and adherence to the program objectives by a panel of scientists and
producers. Senior agency scientists have reviewed the overall grant
annually. Progress toward the new objectives was evaluated based on a
progress report and during a site visit in the fall of 2009.
agricultural diversification, hawaii
Diversified agriculture offers new opportunities and includes
specialty fruits that open a variety of new markets. The overall
objective of this project is to provide scientific and outreach support
services that enable Hawaii entrepreneurs to increase their revenues or
profits from growing and selling specialty fruits.
Highlights of work that have been accomplished include establishing
a private sector oversight committee to review program activities,
research on identification of new products, risk analysis, market
analysis, and provision of business guidelines for growing and selling
new crops. Since project inception, there has been a two- and one-half
fold increase in the number of farms growing tropical specialty fruit
crops and a three-fold increase in the value of the crops produced on
these farms.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: for
fiscal years 1988-1989, $156,000 per year; for fiscal years 1990-1993,
$154,000 per year; for fiscal year 1994, $145,000; for fiscal years
1995-2000, $131,000 per year; for fiscal year 2001, $130,712; for
fiscal year 2002, $128,000; for fiscal year 2003, $127,168; for fiscal
year 2004, $113,327; for fiscal year 2005, $112,096; fiscal year 2006,
$218,790; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $162,852; and
for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $153,000 per year. A total of
$3,157,945 has been appropriated.
Research is being conducted at the University of Hawaii's College
of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources on the island of Oahu, and
other Hawaiian islands.
Evaluation of this project is conducted annually based on the
annual progress report and discussions with the principal investigator.
It has been determined that progress in the development of new
agricultural opportunities and use of decision-making tools for farmers
and entrepreneurs is satisfactory.
agricultural entrepreneural alternatives, pennsylvania
This research is focused on key areas with entrepreneurial growth
potential and will expand into two new areas with considerable growth
potential. Such areas include bio-based energy, green buildings and
organic foods. This research will determine the most effective methods
designed to increase small farm profitability by improving farmers'
business management, marketing, and production practices; and to
identify barriers to marketing local foods in Pennsylvania.
To date, this project has hired a Research Associate whose
appointment began in August 2009. This project has also completed the
following: prepared and beta tested an agriculture and natural
resources green business case study for entrepreneurship students;
established a sustainable entrepreneurship research project design;
gathered content to develop an agricultural focused entrepreneurship
extension and outreach train-the-trainer program.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $248,250; for fiscal year 2009,
$233,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $248,000. The total amount
appropriated is $729,250.
This work is being carried out at Pennsylvania State University
Research station.
Annual proposals for funding are peer reviewed for relevance and
scientific merit. The National Institute of Food and Agriculture agency
contact is also in regular contact with the principal researcher at
Pennsylvania State University to discuss progress towards meeting
project objectives.
agricultural marketing, illinois
The University of Illinois developed an electronic infrastructure
and marketing resource called MarketMaker which was to be used to
assist and educate livestock farmers on marketing strategies for value-
added meat products. It has developed into a tool that can benefit
everyone in the food supply chain, from farmers, to processors,
distributors, retailers, and the consumer looking for unique food
products. The goal for this stage of development will include the
continued geographic expansion of MarketMaker but will also build
greater participation from businesses beyond the farm gate.
Current progress includes the following: Build awareness among non-
farm food related enterprises--Project investigators and State partners
are in the early stages of a campaign to educate and inform food
processors, wholesalers, distributors and food retailers on the use
MarketMaker to acquire attribute specific food products and identify
potential supply chain partners. To extend the outreach of the project,
the investigators have targeted organizations such as the National
Restaurant Association, the American Association of Meat Processors,
the Seafood Products Association, and the Food Marketing Institute.
Solicit Food Industry Feedback--Food industry leaders and decision-
makers have been invited to identify the types of information about
other food related enterprises that they would find most useful.
Conversations with WalMart, Sysco Corp, and C.H. Robinson are ongoing
and are providing valuable feedback that will guide the further
expansion of the current MarketMaker data base. Key Food Industry
decision-maker interviews--The MarketMaker team will continue to
solicit feedback from industry experts to arrive at the optimum extent
of information that would aid food supply chain decision makers.
Investigators will identify key food industry decision-makers, with
input from the Advisory Board. Interviews will focus on collecting data
on (1) food categories and characteristics most important for their
business; (2) search capabilities most important to their business; and
(3) strategies for training personnel to use MarketMaker in their
industry. Identify Key Metrics to Determine the Commercial Readiness of
Farmers--Industry interviews will also allow investigators to inventory
standards of performance that are expected from farmers in such areas
as post harvest handling, packaging standards and food safety
standards. This information will become the basis for developing a
curriculum for ``Commercial Ready Farming Practices''. This curriculum
will be implemented by the land grant partners. Design New Business
Registration Templates--This information will be integrated into a new
online registration template used to create profiles for the individual
business. The farmer/producer portion of the data base already includes
expanded profiles that identify products produced, forms of sale,
marketing attributes, and other types of information that help the user
filter out the farmers that best fit their needs. Newly designed
templates for registering will allow for the creation of equally rich
profiles for food manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, restaurants
and food retailers. Other business profiles in the data base currently
only include the kinds of cursory information that can be purchased
through business data brokers.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant, with an amount of $186,684; and for fiscal years 2009
and 2010, $176,000 per year. The total amount appropriated is $538,684.
The work is being conducted at the University of Illinois.
The agency evaluates the merit of research proposals as they are
submitted. The principal investigators and project managers submit
annual reports to the agency to document impact of the project. Agency
evaluation of the project includes peer review of accomplishments and
proposal objectives and targeted outcomes. Additionally, progress
reports to the Current Research Information System (CRIS) are being
monitored for satisfactory accomplishments and timelines.
agriculture energy innovation center, georgia
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $1,000,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
agriculture science, ohio
This program has focused on research on emerging diseases of
plants, animals, zoonotic diseases, and foodborne diseases.
Specifically, these diseases have included influenza virus, severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, aster yellows
phytoplasma, and sudden oak death. In 2009, work was done to determine
the molecular basis for interspecies transmission of H3N2 viruses
between swine and turkeys. This program also looked to determine if
soybean rust and new strains of stem rust of wheat have arrived in
Ohio, and to develop protocols for sampling for invasive crop diseases
and assessing the accuracy of risk assessment models for emerging high-
impact crop diseases.
Progress continues on research involving influenza viruses, SARS
coronavirus, soybean rust, and sudden oak death. Educational materials
have been developed to assist soybean growers in the identification of
soybean rust in infected plants, and staff training continues for
biosafety laboratory containment. Polyclonal antibodies specific for
the soybean rust pathogen have been developed and several volatiles
have been identified from infected trees that attract insects; chemical
characterization is in progress.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2003, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 2003 was $496,750; for fiscal year 2004,
$444,363; for fiscal year 2005, $542,624; for fiscal year 2006,
$564,300; $0 in fiscal year 2007; $407,130 in fiscal year 2008;
$382,000 in fiscal year 2009; and $450,000 in fiscal year 2010. The
cumulative total amount appropriated is $3,287,167.
This work is being done at the Food Animal Health Research Program
laboratories and clinics at the Ohio Agricultural Research and
Development Center and the Department of Plant Pathology, all located
at The Ohio State University in Wooster, Ohio.
The fiscal year 2009 proposal was institutionally peer-reviewed at
the Ohio State University. In addition, a NIFA National Program Leader
reviewed the proposal and determined that the research project was
appropriate and addresses important opportunities for better
understanding new and emerging plant and animal disease threats.
Furthermore, the feasibility, budget, time-frame, and facilities for
the project were adequate. The National Program Leader noted that these
ongoing research projects outline a program which builds upon
established resources and responds to National research needs in
emerging plant and animal diseases.
agroecology/chesapeake bay agroecology, maryland
The objective of this grant is to preserve farm and forest land in
the Chesapeake Bay region and prevent farmland conversion to housing.
The research focuses on: the management and selection of hull-less
barley cultivars in Maryland that can be used as a feedstock for fuel
ethanol production; investigating a variety of native plant species for
use as high-value niche crops for small farms and nurseries; and
assessing State forestland through the collection of information on
forest type, past management history, age, volume, forest structure,
and species diversity.
This grant has completed some objectives to provide alternative
high value crops to maintain farmland and provide cover crops to reduce
nutrient runoff.
Fiscal year 2009 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant. In fiscal years 2009 and 2010, funds appropriated were
$499,000 per year. A total of $938,000 has been appropriated.
The work is being carried out at the Wye Research and Education
Center in Queenstown, Maryland, and throughout the State.
Fiscal year 2009 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant. An evaluation is planned for the summer of 2010.
air quality, texas and kansas
This research and technology-transfer initiative was created to
form a Federal/State partnership that is: (1) characterizing odor,
odorous gases, particulate matter, and greenhouse gases from open-lot
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs); (2) developing and
evaluating cost-effective abatement measures; (3) providing a sound,
scientific basis for specific air pollution regulations, including
appropriate emission factors for particulates, odor, and odorous gases
for the Southern Great Plains; (4) determining the potential impact of
these air contaminants on animal health and productivity with
inferences related to human health concerns; and (5) providing
technology transfer to the public and agricultural producers. The
project is no longer working on animal health and productivity and has
begun measuring emissions of greenhouse gases. The following are the
most recent accomplishments to date by objective.
Objective 1. Emissions Characterizations for Abatement Measures and
Receptor Impacts.--A value of 20 percent surface moisture content of
feedlot pen surfaces was determined to be a critical threshold for
reducing particulate matter emissions, and time of day was found to be
a critical parameter for applying the water to the pen surface. Average
12-month dry deposition of inorganic nitrogen was found to be almost
three times as large as wet deposition. These relationships will be
very useful in constructing process-based emissions models for
particulate matter and gaseous emissions.
Objective 2. Process-Based Emissions Models.--A nitrogen mass
balance was constructed for cattle in commercial feedyards. Less than
10 percent of the fed nitrogen was retained by the cattle and 30-35
percent of the nitrogen was available to be lost to the atmosphere as
ammonia in winter and almost double that amount in summer. Feeding
distiller's grains, a co-product of ethanol from corn, generated higher
emissions of ammonia nitrogen which was proportional to increased
protein content in the ration.
Objective 3. Dispersion Modeling, Regulation, and Emissions
Factors.--Scraping manure from the feedyard pens reduced reactive
volatile organic carbon emissions significantly. Emission factors for
these organics was a factor of 10 times lower than values used by some
State regulatory agencies. Scraping also significantly reduced
emissions of carbon dioxide and methane. EPA methodology for estimating
feedlot emissions of methane from volatile solids was determined and
compared to more direct emissions measurements.
Objective 4. Technology Transfer.--Investigators produced 4
refereed journal articles, 17 scientific presentations, 5 news
articles, 5 fact sheets, 2 eXtension webinars, and 6 graduate student
theses. The project Web site was consolidated and improved. The project
team received the Vice Chancellor's Award in Excellence-Research for
their work on this project.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2002, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 2002 was $640,000, $869,313 in fiscal
year 2003; $894,690 in fiscal year 2004; $1,065,408 in fiscal year
2005; $1,558,260 in fiscal year 2006; $0 in fiscal year 2007;
$1,160,817 in fiscal year 2008; and $1,090,000 per year in fiscal years
2009 and 2010. A total of $8,368,488 has been appropriated.
Research is being conducted within the Texas A&M University System
with the lead being at the Agricultural Research and Extension Center
at Amarillo and participation at West Texas A&M University. Kansas
State University also participates in the project as well as
participation by the Agricultural Research Service in Bushland, Texas.
A comprehensive program review was completed in August 2008 with an
independent peer review team. The review team reported satisfactory
progress on all but one of the five objectives. The review team felt
that progress on the technology transfer objective could be much better
given the maturity of the project. A number of very helpful
recommendations were given by the review team to the project directors.
The project directors have since met and have laid-out a very
comprehensive plan to address the review team's recommendations. The
2008 review has created a broader group of participants on the advisory
committee. The program officer thoroughly reviewed the most recent
proposal and progress updates and participated in the research planning
meeting for the 2010 fiscal year.
animal science food safety consortium, arkansas, iowa, and kansas
The Food Safety Consortium researchers provide information to
consumers by supporting one of the largest food safety Web sites. The
Food Safety Consortium will continue to improve the safety of American
meat and poultry products, provide U.S. consumers with safer products
and help the United States maintain a major role in the international
market.
The original goal of this research was to assess the potential
threats to beef, pork, or poultry during the production of the live
animal and during processing, distribution, and consumption, in
addition to developing sampling and testing strategies to rapidly
identify any contaminants and determine the distribution of the
contaminants in the food supply. To date promising results were
obtained in continuing work with two natural proteins termed
bacteriocins and produced by two beneficial bacteria belonging to the
genus Bacillus. Preliminary studies indicate a potential mechanistic
action of these new Bacillus candidates involving rapid activation of
innate host immune mechanisms in chickens and turkeys. In addition to
these findings, another research group determined whether combinations
of organic acids would inhibit Salmonella Typhimurium biofilm formation
using an assay based on adherence to titer plate wells. At lower
concentrations organic acids disrupted biofilm formation while higher
concentrations led to bacterial death.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
year 1989, $1,400,000; fiscal year 1990, $1,678,000; fiscal year 1991,
$1,845,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $1,942,000 per year; fiscal year
1994, $1,825,000; fiscal years 1995-1996, $1,743,000 per year; fiscal
year 1997, $1,690,000; fiscal years 1998-2000, $1,521,000 per year;
fiscal year 2001, $1,631,403; fiscal year 2002, $1,598,000; fiscal year
2003, $1,603,509; fiscal year 2004, $1,444,427; fiscal year 2005,
$1,432,448; fiscal year 2006, $1,417,680; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal
year 2008, $1,056,552; fiscal year 2009, $939,000; and fiscal year
2010, $1,000,000. The total appropriation was $32,494,019.
Research is being conducted at the University of Arkansas at
Fayetteville, Iowa State University, and Kansas State University.
This program was reviewed and approved based on the proposal
submission and Current Research Information system (CRIS) reports by
NIFA staff in September 2009.
apple fire blight, michigan and new york
This research is on fire blight in apple trees. Fire blight is a
bacterial disease that can kill spurs, branches, and sometimes entire
trees. The management of this disease is difficult because there are
limited control options available. This research project is designed to
develop fire blight resistant varieties, evaluate biological and
chemical control methods for disease management, and develop an
education and extension program to help growers improve their ability
to manage fire blight in their orchards.
To date, new genes have been identified that show promise for their
ability to make apple trees resistant to fire blight. These genes are
now incorporated into apple trees that are significantly resistant to
fire blight in the field. Additionally, a novel material, kasugamycin,
has been shown to have good potential for controlling fire blight in
areas where streptomycin resistance has developed. This is now being
used by growers on a trial basis and will be further tested this year.
An integrated pest management strategy is being developed and deployed.
Fiscal year 1997 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this project, with an appropriation of $325,000. Each year that
this grant has been appropriated, the total has been split equally
between New York and Michigan. For fiscal years 1998 through 2000,
$500,000 per year; in fiscal year 2001, $498,900; in fiscal year 2002
$489,000; in fiscal year 2003, $491,783; in fiscal year 2004, $456,292;
in fiscal year 2005, $479,136; in fiscal year 2006, $495,000; in fiscal
year 2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008, $368,403; and in fiscal years 2009
and 2010, $346,000 per year. A total of $5,795,514 has been
appropriated.
This research project is being conducted as a collaborative program
at agricultural experiment stations maintained by Michigan State
University and at the New York State Agriculture Experiment Station of
Cornell University, located in Geneva, New York.
Senior agency technical staff conducts a merit review of the
proposal submitted by the performing institution each year. The
investigators have developed improved techniques for transferring
resistance genes into apples and have been able to accelerate flowering
in transgenic trees to be able to make evaluations after 2 years,
rather than 4 to 5 years. The researchers have made progress toward
effective biological control of the bacterium that causes the disease,
as well as understanding the genetic basis for disease development.
aquaculture, california, florida, and texas
The objective of this grant is focused on shell fish aquaculture to
ensure the sustainability of the hard clam aquaculture industry in
Florida through evaluation of stock hybridization, stocking densities,
and an initial assessment of soil characteristics in Florida.
Objectives also focus on developing new technologies to advance United
States marine finfish aquaculture by improving the efficiency and
economic viability of recirculating aquaculture systems for maturation
and spawning of marine fish broodstock.
Accomplishments from this directed research include but are not
limited to: generation of a computer model and new design
specifications for marine broodstock maturation systems and new water
quality monitoring tests and protocols that have led to the successful
spawning of southern flounder producing more than 600,000 viable eggs
and juveniles. These eggs and juveniles were provided to the Texas
Parks and Wildlife fish hatchery system along with juvenile flounder to
a commercial grower for industry development. The University of Texas
determined that juvenile flounder could be successfully reared in 10
parts per 1,000 salinity but had reduced survival at 0.5 parts per
1,000. Digestive enzymes in larval southern flounder were also measured
during development in order to select an appropriate feeding regimen.
Cultured Mercenaria mercenaria and wild Mercenaria campechiensis were
spawned and single-parent crosses accomplished. Allozyme marker
analysis indicated parental clams in two crosses were hybrids. Grow-out
trials indicated hybrid weights and growth were higher than parental
stocks. A laboratory challenge was conducted exposing two families to
salinities of 15 or 25 parts per 1,000 and hypoxic or normoxic
conditions at 32 degrees Centigrade. In the lab challenge, survival
analysis indicated that the Mercenaria mercenaria x Mercenaria
campechiensis crosses performed better under stressful conditions than
did parents or reciprocal crosses. About 248,000 hybrid seed were
planted in 2008 for replicated comparison of stocks, density, and gear.
Experimental clams are sampled every four months and will be harvested
in late summer. Ten commercial growers planted 190,000 seed clams on
commercial leases in three counties for site comparison. Additionally,
in March 2008, a total of 1,017,000 seed was transferred to Cedar Key
for continued culture. The clam husbandry project is still underway.
Work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2006 with an
appropriation of $594,000; $0 in fiscal year 2007; $442,878 in fiscal
year 2008; and $416,000 per year in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The
total amount appropriated is $1,868,878.
The University of Florida, Gainesville, in collaboration with
commercial producers in the Cedar Key area in Florida, is conducting
the clam research. Research on marine finfish is being conducted at the
Mote Marine Laboratory and Aquarium in Sarasota, Florida, the
Department of Marine Science of the University of Texas in Port
Aransas, Texas, and at the Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute in San
Diego and Carlsbad, California.
The Agency's National Aquaculture program staff review the project
annually upon submission of proposals with details on all proposed
studies. Programmatic review of the fiscal year 2009 proposal concluded
that the methodology and experimental design were sound. Additionally,
the Agency held a post-award management workshop in December 2009 that
included reporting on progress and accomplishments and focus on
performance, relevancy, and quality.
aquaculture, idaho and washington
The original goal of the program was to improve and expand trout
aquaculture at the regional and national levels through improved animal
health management, improved water quality management, improved product
quality, and new product development. Past research has led to vital
information on the immune system of trout and new diagnostic methods
that will help in the early detection of disease organisms affecting
the rainbow trout industry; the identification of genetic disease-
resistance markers in rainbow trout which will aid in the development
of genetic vaccines for the rainbow trout industry; the development of
disease diagnostic tools for other salmonids; improved processing
technologies for rainbow trout and improved trout production systems to
reduce effluents from trout farm; water re-use systems for less-costly
and flow-through aquaculture facilities with more environmentally
friendly performance due to new engineering techniques; Hepatopoietic
Necrosis Virus resistance loci in a rainbow X cutthroat cross have been
identified and mapped; and a rickettsial-like bacterial sequence
associated with strawberry disease lesions in rainbow trout has been
identified. Research on other species has led to: both imidacloprid and
carbaryl were found to be efficacious in controlling burrowing shrimp
at the rates tested; and ultrasound can be used to measure egg diameter
in mature female sturgeon and to predict appropriate caviar harvest
times. Recent findings from this program include but are not limited
to: Black soldierfly pre-pupae were grown with and without omega-3 and
omega-6 fatty acids by altering their diets. Black soldierfly pre-pupae
enriched with omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids do not undergo
significant oxidation even after 12 months of storage at room
temperature. These findings suggest that this insect could easily be
stored for several months at room temperature without becoming rancid,
a characteristic that is beneficial to the feed industry if this
product is to be considered as a potential feed ingredient for
aquaculture diets as well as diets for various other animals. The
mechanism of immune-stimulated muscle wasting in fish may be somewhat
different than that in mammals. Selection of strains based on increased
levels of immunity may be detrimental to muscle growth. These results
may also imply that management practices such as long-term feeding of
immunostimulant-containing diets may ultimately reduce production
efficiency. Differential expression of heat shock proteins in rainbow
trout tissues was determined, as well as differential capacity of
rainbow trout embryos to up-regulate heat shock proteins expression in
response to heat shock. Partial results of these studies did show that
older embryos showed greater tolerance to heat shock than younger
embryos. Rainbow trout should be fed a low level of soybean meal during
early feeding to improve utilization of higher levels of soybean meal
in grow-out, and this information challenges current dogma. Findings
from this research have also identified important patterns in consumer
response to mass media reporting on farmed salmon and aquaculture in
general. People often use simple decision rules, leading a large
percentage of the population to avoid farmed seafood products under the
belief that these products are not natural or are contaminated. Media
analysis shows that news stories rarely convey the science in a
complete way. The research is leading to recommendations for both
science reporting and health advisories regarding seafood.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2001, and the
appropriation was $284,373. The fiscal year 2002 appropriation was
$600,000; in fiscal year 2003, $769,963; in fiscal year 2004, $688,911;
in fiscal year 2005, $763,840; in fiscal year 2006, $756,360; in fiscal
year 2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008, $563,031; and in fiscal years 2009
and 2010, $529,000 per year. A total of $5,484,478 has been
appropriated.
Washington State University, the University of Idaho, and the
Pacific Shellfish Institute in Washington are conducting the research.
The proposals are reviewed by the agency's National Aquaculture
Program staff upon submission. The last agency review concluded that
significant progress had been reported on research objectives under
this program. The Principal Investigators were leading authorities in
this area of research and were well aware of the complexity of the
industry and the implications of their research. The proposal was well
written and objectives were clearly stated. The experimental design and
scientific approach appeared to be sound. Literature and justifications
for research were provided. The Agency conducted a post-award workshop
in December 2009 that included reporting on progress and
accomplishments with a focus on performance, quality, and relevancy.
aquaculture, louisiana
The original goal of the research was to provide science-based
information that specifically addressed the needs of the aquaculture
industry in Louisiana and the southern region. The program funded by
the Aquaculture, Louisiana grant has resulted in increased crawfish
production from research on new winter baits, the use of square-mesh
traps, improved pond-draining and stocking schedules, and increased
reproduction capacity and improved predictability of reproduction from
short-term feeding of adult crawfish prior to burrowing. Studies were
completed that evaluated bait type, trap soak-time, and crawfish escape
from traps made from square-mesh welded wire. Research from this
program has also demonstrated that chitosan produced from crawfish
shells offers the potential to reduce off-flavor in processed channel
catfish. Disease control has been enhanced through the development of
new vaccines for channel catfish. Genetic maps have been developed for
commercial strains of channel catfish and research on cryopreservation
technologies has led to improved gene banking of commercially important
aquaculture species. The use of ultrasound for classification of
ovarian condition of catfish, including industry-scale use in
cooperation with commercial farms, was standardized and validated.
Spawning of catfish in greenhouse tanks prior to the natural spawning
season has been documented as well as reproductive conditioning of koi
carp in heated broodstock ponds. Research examined the utilization of
ultrasound technologies to determine the state of ripeness of channel
catfish eggs and demonstrated that channel catfish can be induced to
spawn early by using warm well water without affecting reproductive
performance. New processing technologies have led to improved quality
and safety of cultured aquatic species and new feed formulations have
led to reduced production costs. Energy analysis of alligator
operations showed two major areas where significant savings could
occur: water heating; and feed production. Results from recent crawfish
trials conducted in artificial burrows provided possible cause/effect
relationships observed in crawfish ponds where production relies solely
on natural recruitment to populate ponds. Possible causes of
reproductive impairment were identified to improve the understanding of
population dynamics in crawfish ponds. High-throughput cryopreservation
technologies for blue catfish sperm is now available for application
and, with continued work with commercial hatcheries, will become
available for commercialization. Characterization of larval development
of the Fat Sleeper, a marine baitfish, will aid in the identification
of morphological changes prior to these larvae accepting live or
artificial feed items. Soluble and insoluble proteins from catfish skin
were isolated and studied. Freeze-dried soluble and insoluble
hydrolysate catfish skin powders were shown to have desirable
functional and rheological properties. Protein hydrolysates made from
catfish skin can be converted into a high-value protein powder food
ingredient. Applications of this food ingredient include incorporation
into muscle tissue products by injection, tumbling, and coating. The
majority of Vibrio vulnificus isolates from Gulf oysters were of the
environmental type versus the clinical type, and there was a seasonal
variation in the genotypes identified. The study may help guide future
control measures to focus more specifically on seasons that tend to
accumulate the clinical-type Vibrio vulnificus.
Research conducted under this program continues as initiated under
the Aquaculture General program in fiscal years 1988 through 1991. The
work supported by the current program began in fiscal year 1992, and
the appropriation for fiscal years 1992-1993 was $390,000 per year;
$367,000 in fiscal year 1994; $330,000 each year in fiscal years 1995-
2000; $329,274 in fiscal year 2001; $322,000 in fiscal year 2002;
$327,855 in fiscal year 2003; $313,141 in fiscal year 2004; $329,344 in
fiscal year 2005; $325,710 in fiscal year 2006; $0 in fiscal year 2007;
$243,285 in fiscal year 2008; $188,000 in fiscal year 2009; and
$150,000 in fiscal year 2010. A total of $5,655,609 has been
appropriated.
The research is being conducted at Louisiana State University.
The agency's National Aquaculture Program Staff review proposals as
they are submitted to the agency with details of proposed research
studies. The proposed research is consistent with national goals and
objectives outlined by the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, National
Science, and Technology Council (JSA-NSTC) Strategic Plan for
Aquaculture Research and Development. The Agency conducted a post-award
management workshop in December 2009 that included reporting on
progress and accomplishments with a focus on performance, quality and
relevancy.
aquaculture, mississippi
The fiscal year 2009 research funded under the Aquaculture
Research, Stoneville, Mississippi Special Research grant was focused on
practical feeding and nutritional requirements of channel catfish.
Specific objectives outlined in the fiscal year 2009 proposal include:
(1) evaluate effects of lysine supplementation on lysine-deficient
diets on growth, feed efficiency, and lysine utilization in channel
catfish; (2) determine clearance times for yellow pigments in channel
catfish; and (3) compare satiate and restricted feeding on production
characteristics of pond-raised channel catfish x blue catfish hybrids.
The anticipated impact will be a reduction in feed cost and an increase
in profit for catfish producers. Research funded under this program has
had significant impact on the profitability of the pond-raised channel
catfish industry in the United States. Researchers involved in this
program work closely with the catfish industry providing practical
solutions to improve the feeding efficiency of catfish production
systems.
Past research conducted under this program has resulted in improved
feed formulations and efficiency and improved water quality and disease
resistance strategies for commercial channel catfish culture. Past
results, include but are not limited to, research that has shown that
dried distiller's grains with solubles plus supplemental lysine can
replace about 35 percent of soybean meal, and cottonseed meal plus
supplemental lysine can replace about 50 percent of soybean meal in the
diet without significantly affecting fish growth, feed efficiency, and
processing yield. A combination of distiller's grains, cottonseed meal,
and supplemental lysine can totally replace soybean meal. However, a
dietary level of 30 percent distiller's grains appears to increase the
fillet fat level because of the high fat content in distiller's grains.
Another study examined the use of high-protein finishing diets to
improve processing yield of pond-raised channel catfish using a
multiple-batch cropping system. Results showed that there were no
significant differences in the amount of feed fed, net production,
final weight per fish, feed conversion, processing yield, and body
composition of fish fed low protein diets and finished with high
protein diets compared with fish fed diets containing various levels of
protein throughout the growing season. Based on results from this
study, it appears that finishing with high protein diets does not
appear to be beneficial to improving processing yield of pond-raised
catfish. Another recent project concluded that there were no
significant differences in weight gain, feed conversion ratio,
survival, and processing yield of fish fed diets containing various
levels of canola meal up to 50 percent. Comparisons between channel
catfish and blue catfish concluded that, regardless of dietary protein
levels, blue catfish had higher whole-carcass weight, nugget, and total
meat yield and higher fillet moisture and protein but lower fillet
yield and fillet fat than channel catfish. Results of this program are
quickly disseminated to the industry having an almost immediate impact
on production costs due to close linkages with the channel catfish
industry.
The program was initiated in fiscal year 1980. Grants have been
awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal years 1980-1981,
$150,000 per year; fiscal year 1982, $240,000; fiscal years 1983-1984,
$270,000 per year; fiscal year 1985, $420,000; fiscal years 1986-1987,
$400,000 per year; fiscal year 1988, $500,000; fiscal year 1989,
$588,000; fiscal year 1990, $581,000; fiscal year 1991, $600,000;
fiscal years 1992-1993, $700,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $658,000;
fiscal years 1995-1997, $592,000 per year; fiscal year 1998, $642,000;
fiscal years 1999-2000, $592,000 per year; fiscal year 2001, $590,698;
fiscal year 2002, $579,000; fiscal year 2003, $582,191; fiscal year
2004, $520,908; fiscal year 2005, $516,832; fiscal year 2006, $511,830;
fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $385,284; and fiscal years 2009
and 2010, $361,000 per year. A total of $14,637,743 has been
appropriated.
The research is being conducted at the Thad Cochran National
Warmwater Aquaculture Center and Delta Branch Experiment Station of the
Mississippi State University Agricultural and Forestry Experiment
Station located in Stoneville, Mississippi.
The agency's National Aquaculture Program staff review proposals
with details of planned research studies that are submitted to the
agency. The Agency conducted a post-award management workshop in
December 2009 that included reporting on progress and accomplishments
with a focus on performance, quality and relevancy.
aquaculture, north carolina
The objective of the grant is to improve the production efficiency
of the North Carolina warm water fish culture industry through
understanding the fundamental mechanisms controlling growth and feed
intake, and establishing methods to improve production efficiency and
environmental sustainability of hybrid striped bass in recirculating
water aquaculture systems.
Past research conducted under this program has lead to information
on: certain plasma proteins in hybrid striped bass that were correlated
with specific growth rates; a biofiltration study that suggested that
wood chips would be a cost-effective alternative to the more-expensive,
conventional plastic media; growth uniformity that can be achieved in
yellow perch by controlling temperature and photoperiod of grow-out
systems; nutritional requirement determinations for optimum growth and
development for Southern flounder and hybrid striped bass; selection of
families of hybrid striped bass for production traits including
survival, growth, and dress-out weight; determining that increasing the
percentage of female Southern flounder in a grow-out system will
significantly reduce production costs; partial compensatory growth was
observed in hybrid striped bass food fish grown in ponds and tanks
during the re-alimentation period when fish were fed daily following
periods of feed deprivation and pond total phosphorus concentrations
was 32 percent lower in the compensatory growth treatments than control
ponds; and many genes in hybrid striped bass are activated in
association with the transition of oocytes from primary to secondary
growth. Recent accomplishments include but are not limited to: ovaries
in early atresia produce a choriolysin, which is related to the
hatching enzyme involved in hatching fish embryos so that females
initiating atresia can be identified and induced to reproduce before
they become un-spawnable. Leptin expression was restricted to the liver
in striped bass and hybrid striped bass while in mammals leptin is
expressed predominantly in adipose tissue. Both tissues are important
lipid stores for their respective groups. The principal investigators
found that Insulin-like Growth Factor-I is a strong corollary to
predict growth and that ghrelin, a major appetite stimulatory hormone,
may partially drive the growth hormone secretory dynamics and
hyperphagic response observed with compensatory growth feeding
protocols for hybrid striped bass. Results from studies using chemicals
to reduce effluents from hybrid striped bass ponds strongly suggest
that chemical treatment of pond effluents to achieve Environmental
Protection Agency compliance is not feasible.
Work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997, and the
appropriation was $150,000. The project was not funded in fiscal years
1998 and 1999. The fiscal year 2000 appropriation was $255,000; for
fiscal year 2001, $299,340; for fiscal year 2002, $293,000; for fiscal
year 2003, $291,096; for fiscal year 2004, $260,454; for fiscal year
2005, $277,760; for fiscal year 2006, $321,750; for fiscal year 2007,
$0; for fiscal year 2008, $242,292; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$227,000 per year. The total amount appropriated for this program is
$2,844,692.
The research is being conducted at North Carolina State University
at the North Carolina State aquaculture research facilities in Aurora
and Plymouth, North Carolina.
The agency's National Aquaculture Program staff reviewed the
project upon submission to the agency with details of all proposed
research studies. The proposed research was consistent with the Joint
Subcommittee on Aquaculture's Strategic Plan for Research and
Development. The Agency conducted a post-award management workshop in
December 2009 that included reporting on progress and accomplishments
with a focus on performance, quality and relevancy.
aquaculture product and marketing development, west virginia
The original goal of this research was to develop sound marketing
strategies for aquaculture products, improve the economic efficiency of
aquaculture production systems, and improve the quality and variety of
aquaculture products coming from West Virginia and the Appalachian
region. Research funded under this program has lead to the development
of software designed to simulate raceway production of trout that will
provide a way for growers to determine how to better-manage their
systems; commercial fish meal-free diets that may provide an effective
strategy to reduce the levels of contaminants in farm-raised rainbow
trout; West Virginia fee-fishing opportunities that can contribute to
the productivity of the tourism industry by providing tourists with
more to see and do with respect to outdoor activities; information on
watercress that can be grown in the effluent stream from trout raceway
systems and that may effectively remove nitrogen and phosphorus
discharged into streams; the use of impaired waters, such as mine
discharge ponds, utilizing different feeds and the use of different
strains or species of fish that may open opportunities for small fish
farms in the Appalachian region; aquaponics systems that can utilize
flow-through systems and that cool-season food and ornamental plants
can be produced and grow well in this system; and plant production that
can be maintained year-round providing a reliable income source and
that can be used to grow cool-season crops through the summer when they
are less-available and can command a higher price. New protein and
lipid recovery technologies designed for semi-industrial applications
that will allow protein and lipid recovery in sufficient quantities for
development of marketable, value-added food products from aquaculture
products from West Virginia has lead to the development of basic
parameters for protein and fish oil recovery and design for an
industrial-scale bio-reactor system for processing fish by-products
and/or whole, gutted fish. This has resulted in the submission of two
patent applications filed by West Virginia University with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
year 1998, $600,000; $750,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000;
$748,350 for fiscal year 2001; $733,000 for fiscal year 2002; $735,190
for fiscal year 2003; $671,017 for fiscal year 2004; $705,312 in fiscal
year 2005; $742,500 in fiscal year 2006; $0 in fiscal year 2007;
$521,325 in fiscal year 2008; $489,000 in fiscal year 2009; and
$550,000 in fiscal year 2010. A total of $7,995,694 has been
appropriated.
The work is being carried out at the University of West Virginia in
Morgantown along with a number of cooperators.
Proposals with details of planned research studies are submitted to
the agency for critical review by the agency's National Aquaculture
Program staff. The proposed research was consistent with national goals
and objectives outlined in the National Science and Technology
Council's Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture under the Strategic Plan
for Aquaculture Research and Development. The Agency conducted a post-
award management workshop in December 2009 that included reporting on
progress and accomplishments with a focus on performance, quality and
relevancy.
armillaria root rot, michigan
This project has objectives to find resistance to Armillaria root
rot of cherry by conventional breeding techniques and to develop a
management strategy for Armillaria root disease, primarily host plant
resistance. The nurseries in infected field plots have already been
established, but the outcome of the experiment will be 5 to 8 years in
the future. Within the large screening program, some epidemiological
work on strain distribution and on the efficacy of sanitation measures
will be done. Analysis of integrated pest management possibilities,
particularly biological control and chemical control are underway.
Basic research is being conducted on the fungal pathogen itself, in the
evaluation of genetic factors that help the Armillaria fungus develop
rhizomorphs that grow from one tree to the next and are important in
protecting the fungus from sunlight.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2002, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 2002 was $160,000; in fiscal year 2003,
$158,960; in fiscal year 2004, $142,156; in fiscal year 2005, $149,792;
in fiscal year 2006, $149,490; in fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year
2008, $111,216; and in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $104,000 per year.
The total amount appropriated is $1,079,614.
This work is being carried out at Michigan State University.
The submitting institution conducts a peer review of the proposal
prior to submission. Senior agency technical staff conducts a merit
review of the proposal prior to making a funding recommendation. The
agency may conduct an on-site review in 2010.
asparagus production technologies, washington
The original goals of this research were to reduce production and
consumer costs and increase the annual asparagus supply. To date this
research has proven the concept of new harvesting technologies to
reduce field labor costs, developed new reduced-labor processing
technologies, investigated new packaging processes to improve quality
and shelf life of fresh-packed asparagus, and began investigations into
the economic and social impact of reduced-labor asparagus production.
Reduced production costs will increase the national and global
competitiveness asparagus growers.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2001. The
amount appropriated for fiscal year 2001 was $224,505; for fiscal year
2002, $260,000; for fiscal year 2003, $278,180; for fiscal year 2004,
$248,525; for fiscal year 2005, $248,000; for fiscal year 2006,
$245,520; for fiscal year 2007, $0; and fiscal year 2008, $183,705; and
for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $173,000 per year. The total amount
appropriated is $1,861,435.
The work is being conducted at Washington State University's
agricultural experiment stations in Prosser and Pasco and at Michigan
State University's experiment station in East Lansing.
The performing institution conducts a peer review of each proposal
and submits an annual progress report to the agency each year. Progress
has been made in achieving the research objectives. Senior agency
technical staff reviews each proposal to assess quality. The findings
of these reviews indicate progress in achieving the project's
objectives.
avian bioscience, delaware
The objective of the grant is to improve production efficiency,
animal health, environmental compatibility, and food safety in poultry
systems. A key goal of the University of Delaware Center for Avian
Biosciences (Center) is to strengthen the interfaces between recognized
and growing programs to enhance their visibility and effectiveness.
Since its inception in 2006, and continued efforts in 2009, the Center
has made significant contributions in the field of avian biosciences.
Some of the significant highlights include: developed foam-based humane
emergency mass depopulation alternative for floor-reared poultry
broilers and turkeys; improved in-house compositing of poultry
carcasses infected with highly pathogenic avian viruses; interacted
with Federal agencies and legislators and provided scientific
information for adoption/endorsement of the technology by the U.S.
poultry industry; made numerous training presentations on Avian
Influenza controls and eradication efforts; developed avian influenza
rapid diagnostic assays; received recognition for two University of
Delaware laboratories as leading labs in avian influenza surveillance
and detection in wild birds and poultry; sponsored numerous conferences
and workshops; established significant domestic and international
linkages in animal health. This Center continues to build partnerships
with the industry, appropriate State and Federal agencies, other
organizations, centers, and universities in research, teaching and
outreach efforts. Furthermore, undergraduate and graduate educational
programs in avian biosciences are flourishing under faculty mentorship
in avian bioscience disciplines.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2006 with an
appropriation of $99,000; in fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008,
$74,475; in fiscal year 2009, $94,000; and in fiscal year 2010,
$150,000. A total of $417,475 has been appropriated.
This work is being carried out at the University of Delaware in
Newark, Delaware.
The agency thoroughly evaluated the current year and previous year
progress in May of 2009. The agency evaluation is in agreement with the
project description as being 40 percent research and 60 percent applied
in nature. Subsequent conversations and email exchanges between the
Project Director and our liaison suggest that the project is
progressing well.
babcock institute, wisconsin
The original goal of the Institute was to cultivate links between
the dairy industry of the United States and those in the rest of the
world through mutually beneficial research and programs that are
scientific, educational, and commercial in nature. This involves
research collaboration and scientific exchange, world market and dairy
trade analysis, and education and training programs. The Institute is
still dedicated to its original goal. The Babcock Institute has
completed studies of the Indian and Mexican dairy sectors as part of
its series of dairy ``country/regional studies'' designed to help
United States firms and policymakers develop strategies and policies to
exploit export opportunities and accommodate actions of foreign dairy
companies and governments in exporting countries. Mexico is the largest
market for U.S. exporters of dairy products. In 2008, Mexico purchased
U.S. dairy products valued at $935 million. Babcock is developing links
with Southeast Asia. In 2009, the Director participated in a Trade
mission to Japan and China to promote Wisconsin as a site for foreign
investment and learn more about export opportunities and technical
collaborations. Babcock is collaborating with the China Agricultural
University in Beijing to increase the exchange of scientific
information between the United States and China. Visitors from China
toured the Babcock Institute to learn ways to help improve the quality
and safety of dairy products in China. Babcock is building ties to
current and future dairy leaders in Mexico through links with the main
agricultural campus at Queretaro, Mexico's leading private University,
commonly known as Monterrey Tec, the large Alpura processing
cooperative, and the national Holstein Association. Partnerships have
resulted in research to help improve the flavor of United States-
produced Hispanic cheeses, which continue to be a substantial growth
area in the United States, but are routinely criticized for poor flavor
and functional characteristics. Babcock is funding research through
sub-grants to study methods to improve animal/dairy products
production. This includes feed evaluation to improve animal nutrition,
which will improve the nutritional value of the dairy products and
enhance dairy yields. Studies on the microbiology and chemistry of
artisanal cheeses are also ongoing. The Institute has reached out to
international and domestic producer groups with multilingual technical
publications and CDs, multilingual electronic outreach through the Web,
and international short courses and consulting services. Institute
staff members continue to work closely with county extension agents to
create practical training materials for Spanish-speaking dairy
employees, including calf care and herdsmanship modules for the Dairy
Worker Training series, and with University of Wisconsin--Madison
professors to create educational CDs for U.S. and international farmers
and dairy industry professionals. Recently developed CDs include
Artificial Insemination Techniques, Milking Skills, and Brucellosis
Prevention. Babcock also produces the Dairy Update series, which brings
University of Wisconsin research findings to the agricultural
community. The institute provided training to improve the quality and
safety of dairy products to dairy farmers, producers, scientists, and
students from Europe, Central and South America, Southeast Asia, and
the Middle East. Training of young scientists in the United States in
dairy science and cheese making is ongoing.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
years 1992 and 1993, $75,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $250,000;
fiscal years 1995-1998, $312,000 per year; fiscal year 1999, $400,000;
fiscal year 2000, $510,000; fiscal year 2001, $598,680; fiscal year
2002, $588,000; fiscal year 2003, $596,100; fiscal year 2004, $536,814;
fiscal year 2005, $564,448; fiscal year 2006, $594,000; fiscal year
2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $442,878; and fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$416,000 per year. A total of $7,310,920 has been appropriated.
The work of the Babcock Institute is carried out at the University
of Wisconsin--Madison College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and
throughout the world.
The Babcock Institute undergoes two independent reviews each year,
internally at the University of Wisconsin prior to submission of the
proposal, and by technical staff at NIFA prior to approval for release
of funds. In addition, the Institute was included in a review of the
Department of Dairy Science at the University of Wisconsin in May,
2004. The 2009 proposal was reviewed by the NIFA National Program
Leader.
barley for rural development, idaho and montana
The original goal of this research was to use results from
significant earlier investment in barley genetics and molecular
genetics to assemble appropriate genetic packages, with traditional
crossing and selection techniques, to develop and release more
economically productive barley varieties to western barley growers.
These researchers have focused on unique attributes of barley as a crop
and a valued product. A major development this year has been the
acceptance of barley varieties developed by this project by major
brewing companies, including Coors-Miller and Anhauser-Busch. The new
varieties performed well in brewing quality tests. Farmers will benefit
because the project's new varieties are significantly more reliable for
them than varieties they were growing before, which were bred in and
for Canada. Barley farmers in Montana, Idaho, and similar regions can
now grow varieties that have a good market and reduced risk of crop
failure, two characteristics that are critical for farm income and
rural development. In addition, the researchers report a technical
breakthrough this year toward a practical and economically feasible on-
farm ethanol production from barley straw. After natural in-field
freezing, fructan components in the straw can be isolated,
concentrated, and fermented by a specific yeast to create biofuel.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2006 with an
appropriation of $727,650; $0 in fiscal year 2007; $547,143 in fiscal
year 2008; $514,000 in fiscal year 2009; and $547,000 in fiscal year
2010. The total amount appropriated is $2,335,793.
Research is being conducted at Montana State University and the
University of Idaho.
Each annual proposal is reviewed by senior agency technical staff.
This research has been productive based on germplasm releases and peer-
reviewed journal articles and other publications.
beef improvement research, missouri and texas
The original goal of this program was to enhance production
efficiency in beef cattle production systems. Since 2006, the Missouri
group research has focused on measuring residual feed intake among
animals, its relevance to feed costs differences among animals, and
benefit of selecting for residual feed intake in reducing production
costs in the feedlot. The research has shown that selecting progeny
from sires that were tested to be efficient compared to those testing
inefficient reduced production costs in the feedlot by an estimated $60
per head. The Texas researchers selected 105 Brahman bulls, 120 Brahman
heifers, and 38 Bonsmara heifers based on phenotypic measure of
residual feed intake including reproductive performance. The next phase
of this study included breeding high and low efficiency Brahaman
females to high and low efficiency Hereford bulls to develop high and
low efficiency F1 females. With these animal populations in hand, the
project staff is now pursuing to determine the biological basis for
genetic and phenotypic variation in feed efficiency of growing and
mature cattle; examining behavioral and physiological responses in
cattle with divergent feed efficiencies; develop technologies to reduce
the cost and increase the accuracy of measuring feed efficiency in
cattle, especially on pasture; examine relationships between feed
efficiency and fertility in gestation cows, growing heifers, and bulls;
and develop producer education programs to enhance adoption of these
technologies. Ultimately, a significant reduction in feed input costs
and environmental impacts of beef production systems are the desired
target.
The work supported under this grant began in fiscal year 2006, and
the appropriation for fiscal year 2006 was $990,000; in fiscal year
2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008, $737,799; and in fiscal years 2009 and
2010, $693,000 per year. A total of $3,113,799 has been appropriated.
This work is being carried out at the Departments of Animal
Sciences at Texas A&M University and the University of Missouri--
Columbia.
The agency evaluated the initial proposal in May of fiscal year
2006. In September 2006, the National Program Leader responsible for
the grant oversight visited the Texas facilities. The project was
reviewed again in 2008. The Missouri project was reviewed by the
National Program Leader in fiscal year 2006. No site visit for the
Missouri project has been conducted. However, the project progress and
the current project were thoroughly reviewed in spring of 2008 and
spring of 2009.
bioactive foods and research for health and food safety, massachusetts
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an appropriation of $525,000. Since this is a new
grant, no information is available regarding the program's research
goals and objectives.
biodesign and processing research center, virginia
The Biodesign and Bioprocessing Research Center researchers are
working to develop processes for producing high value polymers from
poultry and dairy processing in Virginia, optimize biogas and acid
production potential and nutrient recovery from dairy manure, and
conduct a proof-of-concept study to produce high-yield hydrogen from
polysaccharides and water through a novel enzymatic method.
The project has been investigating ways to toughen agricultural by-
product proteins from poultry and dairy processing by eliminating the
diffusible glycerol component and ways to stabilize the protein against
biodegradation for longer life. It has been discovered that choice of
the correct protein structure through processing can stabilize the
protein to microbial attack and more efficiently tailor product life.
Current studies are also focusing on self-assembly protein structures
from wheat and corn protein that could serve as templates for high
performance materials. Results so far show that these proteins can form
fibers similar to silk, hair, and collagen. Studies have been conducted
to explore a novel attached culture system for growing the alga
Chlorella as a biodiesel feedstock, using dairy manure wastewater as
the growth medium. Among the various supporting materials tested for
algal attachment, the best performance in terms of biomass yield, ease
of harvest and physical robustness was observed with polystyrene foam.
The algal culture removed 61-79 percent total nitrogen and 62-93
percent total phosphorus from the dairy manure wastewater under
different culture conditions. A patent application has been filed based
on this technology. The project also produced high-yield hydrogen from
cellulosic materials. In addition, they have increased the hydrogen
production rate by 10x fold through optimization. The next 10-fold
increase in reaction rate will greatly enhance the chances for
commercialization of the technology. The results of these
investigations have been disseminated at numerous national and
international conferences throughout the World. The Center has provided
opportunities for training of a large number of graduate students in an
effort to produced skilled work force for the bio-industry of the
future.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2006. The
appropriation for fiscal year 2006 was $940,000; for fiscal year 2007,
$0; for fiscal year 2008, $701,058; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$868,000 per year; A total of $3,377,058 has been appropriated.
The research is conducted at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University.
A progress report for fiscal year 2009 has been evaluated, and it
has been determined that progress toward accomplishing the project
objectives is on-going.
bioenergy production and carbon sequestration, tennessee
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $1,000,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
biomass-based energy research, mississippi and oklahoma
This project is focused on the conversion of cellulosic biomass,
such as switchgrass, to liquid fuels using a gasification-fermentation
process. Specifically, the project will: (1) assess the feedstock
potential of agricultural and forestry crops; (2) establish critical
parameters in maintaining syngas quality; (3) advance bioreactor
designs and enhance enzyme activities; (4) investigate potential
valuable products that complement ethanol production; and (5) determine
the full cost of system components including production, harvesting,
storage, processing, and waste disposal. The project has developed a
new high-yielding switchgrass cultivar that has demonstrated
significantly higher yields than the best standard variety.
Correlations between gasifer performance parameters and biomass
properties have improved the understanding of operational variables and
increased syngas quality. Preliminary estimates suggest that at least
three units of energy are produced for one energy unit of input.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2001, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 2001 was $900,016; for fiscal year 2002,
$960,000; for fiscal year 2003, $1,142,525; for fiscal year 2004,
$1,022,929; for fiscal year 2005, $1,014,816; for fiscal year 2006,
$1,188,000; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $893,700;
and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $839,000 per year. The total amount
appropriated is $8,799,986.
The work is being carried out at Oklahoma State University, the
University of Oklahoma, and Mississippi State University.
Evaluation of this project is conducted yearly based on annual
progress reports and discussions with the principle investigators over
the course of the year. This project is making progress in accordance
with the mission of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
biotechnology, north carolina
The original goal of this research was to improve the
competitiveness of wood production in the southern United States, to
better manage invasive pathogens of ornamental trees, and to increase
the distribution of elite hardwood trees in natural forest settings.
Researchers are planning on using biotechnology and genetics to address
optimal ways to generate both transgenic and non-transgenic Populus
clones that are better adapted as biomass feedstock under varying
environmental conditions. Recent accomplishments include the
development of field sites at Oxford and Williamsdale, North Carolina.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2001, and the
following amounts have been appropriated: in fiscal year 2001,
$284,373; in fiscal year 2002, $306,000; in fiscal year 2003, $304,011;
in fiscal year 2004, $272,383; in fiscal year 2005, $286,688; in fiscal
year 2006, $284,130; in fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008,
$211,509; and in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $199,000 per year. The
total amount appropriated is $2,347,094.
The research is being conducted at North Carolina State University
and various sites in the southern Appalachians and elsewhere in the
southeastern United States.
Senior agency technical staff conducts a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
The submitting institution conducts a peer review of the proposal prior
to submission.
bovine tuberculosis, michigan and minnesota
The original goal of this program is to focus on the issues of
spatial epidemiologic relationships involved in the transmission of
tuberculosis among the deer population, survivability of the organism
in the environment, and the other wild or domestic hosts that may exist
for this organism, as well as the pathogenesis of the disease in
pigeons. Tuberculosis infected deer have been found to be the source of
infection for other wild animals and domestic cats. New approaches to
TB diagnosis and detection, through more rapid, reliable diagnostic
tools and novel and more efficient surveillance techniques, are needed
to reduce the significant costs associated with TB control and
eradication programs. A risk assessment model for herd tuberculosis
status was developed and correctly classified 95 percent of the
simulated case herds as tuberculosis positive. This risk model
accurately predicts the likelihood of a beef herd being correctly
identified as tuberculosis positive or negative. Incorporating these in
to a risk-based surveillance program will enhance current TB
surveillance programs. This will decrease both the economic and
psychological costs of TB, and accelerate TB control and eradication.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000 with an
appropriation of $170,000; for fiscal year 2001, $324,285; for fiscal
year 2002, $318,000; for fiscal year 2003, $345,738; for fiscal year
2004, $309,165; for fiscal year 2005, $352,160; for fiscal year 2006,
$352,440; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $262,152; for
fiscal year 2009, $246,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $346,000. The
cumulative total amount appropriated is $3,025,940.
This work is being conducted at the College of Veterinary Medicine
at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan.
Each proposal submitted to NIFA has been institutionally peer-
reviewed at Michigan State University. During the review of the fiscal
year 2009 proposal, the NIFA National Program Leader determined that
the research objectives were clearly described and placed in lucid and
logical context with the objectives of the prior grant cycle.
brucellosis vaccine, montana
The original goal of this program is to develop vaccine delivery
systems and novel Brucella vaccines for bison. This will be
accomplished by conducting research to design and develop new subunit
and live Brucellosis vaccines that will effectively protect bison and
cattle against Brucellosis.
Progress to date includes a better understanding of the bison
immune response which shows the dynamics of bison immunity and the
importance of studying bison mucosal immune responses to assist in the
development of new generation Brucella vaccines. Reagents have been
developed to detect immune responses of bison, and an oral delivery
system for a bison vaccine has been optimized. The investigator
continues to work toward vaccine development, and has identified
possible candidates for the brucellosis vaccine. Results from the bison
and mouse vaccination studies are promising due to protective efficacy
which was obtained in both animal systems. Thus, the development of a
subunit vaccine for brucellosis appears to be feasible once analyses'
discerning the protective epitopes using a DNA vaccine approach has
been completed. Further work was also done to characterize the new
vaccine candidates.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999. The
appropriation for fiscal year 1999 was $150,000; for fiscal year 2000,
$425,000; for fiscal year 2001, $494,909; for fiscal year 2002,
$485,000; for fiscal year 2003, $489,796; for fiscal year 2004,
$438,398; for fiscal year 2005, $440,448; for fiscal year 2006,
$435,600; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $324,711; and
for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $305,000 per year. The total amount
appropriated is $4,303,862.
This work is being done at Montana State University's Department of
Veterinary and Molecular Biology in Bozeman, Montana.
Each fiscal year, the submitted proposal for this program is peer-
reviewed by the institution prior to submission, and subsequently
reviewed by a NIFA National Program Leader.
cataloging genes associated with drought and disease resistance, new
mexico
This research will use computational tools to investigate changes
in gene expression that occur during drought and diseases stresses in
plants grown in the American Southwest. The researchers propose to link
DNA sequence information to gene expression patterns with particular
interest in those genes that affect plant metabolism. They will also
set up plant metabolite extraction methods and gas chromatography and
mass spectrometry analysis methods to quantify key metabolites. Based
on gene expression data, the researchers predict that certain
metabolites in Capsicum chili and Phaseolus beans will be altered in
response to disease and drought. They will test these predictions using
root samples collected from treated resistant and susceptible or
tolerant genotypes. Research on the molecular genetics of drought
stress and the impact of drought on disease stress is crucial as water
supplies and quality become more restricted.
In 2009, these researchers focused on the development of a process
for green chemistry extraction of commercially valuable red pigments
from chili peppers. This will be a new process that may be patented.
They have also discovered that not all orange-colored chili peppers are
high in beta-carotene, since red and yellow pigments can mix in the
fruit to create orange color. Chili breeding programs should verify
whether or not there is a link between color and vitamin content in
their material, before proceeding with visual selection based on color.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $186,684; and for fiscal years 2009
and 2010, $176,000 per year. A total of $538,684 has been appropriated.
The research will be conducted at New Mexico State University.
The submitting institution conducts a peer review of the proposal
prior to submission. Senior agency technical staff conducts a merit
review of the proposal prior to making a funding recommendation.
center for one medicine, illinois
The original goal of this program, was to educate a new cadre of
health professionals who understand the determinants and contributing
factors for human, animal, and ecosystem health as well as how public
health policy is developed and how it affects the health of all three
objectives. To understand disease processes that occur at the interface
of human and animal activities and their effects on the environment and
to improve our society's preparedness and response to natural and
intentional exposures of biological, chemical, and physical agents.
Fiscal year 2009 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant. An amount of $235,000 was appropriated in fiscal year
2009 and $500,000 in fiscal year 2010. A total of $735,000 has been
appropriated.
The work is being carried out at the University of Illinois, at
Urbana-Champaign.
The fiscal year 2009 proposal was institutionally peer-reviewed at
the Center for One Medicine. In addition, a NIFA National Program
Leader reviewed the proposal.
center for rural studies, vermont
The original goal was to create a database and analytical
capability for rural development programming in Vermont. Past
accomplishments include maps to target child hunger and rural
development opportunities, applied research to inform the development
of retail areas, an ``Economic Handbook for Vermont Counties,'' and
strategies for using the Internet.
The Center has assisted local officials with e-mail, streaming
video, software installation and utilization, and accessing information
from Web sources. It has developed databases useful for local planners
and school boards and indicators to help local officials interpret data
and apply for State and Federal grants. It worked with the Vermont
Council on Rural Development to assess the need for broadband Internet
service and facilitated community-level solutions for service in more
than 47 towns. It has developed training materials for town clerks on
Web site design, e-Government, and e-security.
In 2008, the Center updated the ``Vermont Indicators Online,''
collaborated with the U.S. Census Bureau to ensure access to Census
Bureau data, assisted Vermont data users, and maintained a Census
Bureau data portal for State residents. The VIO had 24,000 Web site
visits, and 60,000 pages of data were accessed that year. The Center
also developed the ``Vermont Geography Portal'' to make spatial
information and a mapping application widely available. In addition,
the Center developed a GIS educational curriculum for municipal
officials and K-12 educators. Also in 2008, the Center developed
methods to use spatial data to identify population clusters in the
State and analyze them community-by-community.
In 2009, the Center surveyed over 400 Vermont farmers on land and
development issues related to farmer decisions to purchase or sell land
or to change the way they farm. Almost 80 percent reported that local
boards had some degree of understanding of agricultural issues and
operations. The Center addressed the issue of extending broadband to
rural Vermont and developed a database of over 4,800 households and
businesses that want broadband access and services. Focusing on farm
business incubation, the project supported 15 operations over 3 years
that now report an average net farm income increase from $18,000 to
$21,000 over 1 year. The Center completed a study of a local food e-
commerce portal to assist in marketing fresh products. Farmers will
help design and test an e-commerce portal in fiscal year 2010.
Workshops for women farmers helped expose producers to new
opportunities through the Internet. The Center continued to enhance and
maintain the Vermont Indicators Online (VIO) Web site and the Vermont
Housing Data Web site. The project funded two rounds of business
workshops for food product entrepreneurs and provided technical
assistance to a State farm-to-school program, with VT FEED. Other
activities included maintaining and updating the Vermont Planning
Information Center, a clearinghouse of information for municipal land
use officials, and launching a community-based participatory research
partnership with Smart Growth Vermont to determine indicators of health
for Vermont downtowns, including food systems and regional landscape
date.
The grant was initiated in fiscal year 1992. Appropriated amounts
are: fiscal years 1992-1993, $37,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
$35,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $32,000 per year; fiscal years 1999-
2000, $200,000 per year; fiscal year 2001, $199,560; fiscal year 2002,
$240,000; fiscal year 2003, $337,790; fiscal year 2004, $302,206;
fiscal year 2005, $348,192; fiscal year 2006, $361,350; fiscal year
2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $261,159; fiscal year 2009, $245,000; and
fiscal year 2010, $350,000. Total appropriations are $3,282,257.
The work is being carried out through the University of Vermont.
Parts of the research and application are done in association with
county planning commissions and local governments and business
organizations.
The agency evaluates the merit of research proposals as they are
submitted. The principal investigators and project managers submit
annual reports to the agency to document impact of the project. Agency
evaluation of the project includes peer review of accomplishments and
proposal objectives and targeted outcomes.
childhood obesity and nutrition, vermont
The objective of this grant is to increase physical activity
behavior in preschool children enrolled in daycare centers by:
increasing the exercise self-efficacy of daycare staff, increasing
their knowledge and changing attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions about
preschool physical activity, and increasing the availability and
utilization of high quality physical activity materials.
This research looks at physical activity behavior as one
intervention. Formative data on daycare centers and daycare providers
were collected in 2004 through three focus groups to see how staff
perceived physical activity for children, what they felt the barriers
to children getting more activity were and how they felt about their
own activity. Focus groups gave positive feedback that physical
activity for children was important to daycare providers. A key result
was that the day care setting was a very favorable environment for
promotion of physical activity with perceived advantages to social,
cognitive, behavioral and health issues. In addition, there was a
strong appreciation of the child care provider's role in promoting,
facilitating, or teaching physical activity skills during active play
times. Both modeling and leadership were seen as important to obtaining
the benefits of physical activity in this environment. While child care
providers showed a strong appreciation of their role in promoting,
facilitating, or teaching physical activity during active play times,
the level of engagement in physical activity in their own lives varied
widely, suggesting that this will be a challenging direction for
intervention in comparison to other skills directly related to child
care work. Barriers to physical activity in day care settings to
include indoor and outdoor space available, access to open land and
play or exercise equipment were explored. In 2005 and 2006, two mail
surveys were implemented and sent to Vermont daycare center directors
and to daycare staff. Survey responses helped researchers identify
training needs; training content, format, location and incentives;
barriers to staff involvement in modeling or leading active play; and
supporters or reinforcers for active play. In 2006 and 2007, the
feasibility of using SenseWear Armbands to measure physical activity
was determined in two different daycare centers. In 2008, the physical
activity of 61 children from seven daycare centers was measured via
direct observation and objectively using the SenseWear Armbands.
Results showed that children spent a total of 58 percent of their day
sedentary; 36.8 percent in moderate activity; 4.4 percent in vigorous
activity and 0.7 percent in very vigorous activity. Children were about
twice as active when they played outside as compared to inside for
moderate or vigorous activity and the quality of their play or level of
energy expended 10 percent higher when they were engaged in teacher-led
activities. This evidence supports current work to train providers to
provide more teacher-directed, structured physical activity to
preschool children.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2003 with an
appropriation of $149,025; for fiscal year 2004, $133,209; for fiscal
year 2005, $190,464; for fiscal year 2006, $198,990; for fiscal year
2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $112,209; for fiscal year 2009,
$169,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $250,000. A total of $1,202,897 has
been appropriated.
Research is being conducted at the University of Vermont and State
Agricultural College, Burlington.
The project underwent a peer review process in June 2009 in
accordance with USDA guidelines and is also evaluated through annual
reports. The project materials have also been reviewed by the
Institutional Review Board and by State daycare leaders. Finally, any
data that are published would be evaluated through the peer review
process.
citrus canker and greening, florida
The original goals of this research were to evaluate potential
materials that could delay or interfere with the bacterial infection
processes on susceptible host material, characterize aspects of canker
and HLB and ACP biology, ecology, and epidemiology that might be
manipulated to reduce infection or to predict more effectively where
infection has taken place, and to develop mechanisms within the host
plants that will increase their resistance to infection and disease
development. Researchers are attempting to introduce additional
resistance mechanisms derived from the pathogen or from plants with
resistance to other similar bacterial diseases. Educational objectives
of this project focus on development and delivery of current
information on the organism, the disease, and efforts to eliminate it.
Educational programs will be designed for commercial citrus producers,
harvesters, and those who work in contact with citrus trees which may
be exposed to the disease; homeowners with citrus planted in their
yards; the general public who seeks information on the eradication
effort and its necessity; and regulators and policy makers who are
interested in science-based actions and policies.
This program began in fiscal year 2001. Funds have been
appropriated as follows: fiscal year 2001, $4,739,550; fiscal year
2002, $490,000; fiscal year 2003, $486,815; fiscal year 2004, $447,345;
fiscal year 2005, $470,208; fiscal year 2006, $495,000; fiscal year
2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $1,295,865; and fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$1,217,000 per year. The total amount appropriated is $10,858,783. This
project was funded only for citrus canker through 2007. Citrus greening
was added to the objectives in 2008 although funding levels did not
increase.
The research is being conducted at the University of Florida
research and education facilities located at Lake Alfred, Bradenton,
Immokalee, and Homestead; and in South Texas.
Senior agency technical staff evaluates the project every year. In
addition, the University of Florida operates this project as an
internal competitive grants program that seats an independent panel of
experts to review the research and extension proposals. The agency
worked with the program director to develop a request for applications
and provided input into the development of a peer-review process. A
review of the research supported by this project was undertaken in 2006
by the National Citrus Research Council, and an agency technical
specialist was in attendance. There was no recommendation for change of
direction, and the community wants to stay the course with the current
objectives, while increasing public outreach, particularly on the
option of transgenic oranges. In 2011, the Agricultural Research
Service is leading a national research coordination effort. This
special grant funded research projects and new request for applications
will be reviewed in the context of the total national research and
extension effort on citrus diseases.
competitiveness of agriculture products, washington
This research identifies international marketing opportunities for
Northwest firms in the forest products and food products sectors by
providing information on markets and product technologies that can open
higher-valued international markets to U.S. exporters. Foreign
purchasers need information on the advantages of U.S. products, and
U.S. exporters need information on the substantially different quality
and service requirements for serving foreign markets.
The International Marketing Program for Agricultural Commodities
and Trade (IMPACT) program of Washington State University implements
this research and provides a central and stable core of knowledgeable
experts who can guide small export businesses in navigating these
markets successfully.
The Center for International Trade in Forest Products (CINTRAFOR),
located within the College of Forest Resources at the University of
Washington, provides the research knowledge in marketing and product
conversion to be competitive in the world market.
The most recent accomplishments of IMPACT and CINTRAFOR are:
For 2008
IMPACT Center developed a cost effective algal cultivation process
for converting cull potato starch to omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty
acids (omega-3 PUFA), more specifically, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). A
patent for the process is currently pending. The enriched algal biomass
that is created in the process also has auxiliary uses as feed
additives that can be fed to dairy cows to enrich the nutritional value
of milk or to other animals to increase the value of the respective
animal products. In addition to the clear impact of providing a supply
source for omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids that can have positive
health effects on humans, as well as providing for nutritionally
enhanced milk products, the process also provides for a valuable
alternative market outlet for cull potatoes that might otherwise have
limited value in the market place for potato producers.
CINTRAFOR, manages the United States-China Build (USCB) program and
promotes the benefits of wood frame construction to construction
professionals in China. This program also provides U.S. wooden building
materials manufacturers the opportunity to participate in trade
missions to China where they can meet with potential customers in three
different cities to showcase their products and services. Since the
start of the program, over 100 U.S. companies and over 2,800 Chinese
construction industry professionals have participated in USCB programs
in China. This program has resulted in over $32.4 million in new export
sales to China while creating almost 350 new jobs within the forest
products sector in the United States.
For 2009
The IMPACT Center funds a variety of projects applying advances in
science and technology to improve the competitiveness of food and
agricultural systems in today's global market.
IMPACT Center scientists are investigating polices for mitigating
production and trade effects from invasive species outbreaks in
livestock--e.g., mad cow disease or foot and mouth disease--and
plants--e.g., apple maggot. Other projects include exploring the phase
out of organophosphate pesticides on the apple industry, enhancing wine
exports, profitability in the organic sector, and assessment of agri-
tourism.
Research has demonstrated that losses from a foot and mouth
outbreak in the United States could range over $270 billion, but that
this can be dramatically reduced with improved traceability in the
livestock system. Other projects can improve export success for
existing industries, solve phytosanitary and barriers to trade issues,
or develop alternative revenues through organic production and agri-
tourism.
CINTRAFOR manages the highly successful United States-China Build
program for the Evergreen Building Products Association.
In 2009, CINTRAFOR organized two sales missions to China where 17
U.S. companies made technical presentations to the 678 Chinese
construction professionals who attended the six seminars.
Following the conclusion of the two sales missions, the U.S.
companies reported that they had obtained total sales of $22,441,000 as
a result of their participation in the United States-China Build
program. It is estimated that the increase in U.S. exports resulting
from these two sales missions led to the creation of 252 new jobs.
The work began in fiscal year 1992. The appropriation for fiscal
years 1992-1993 was $800,000 each year; fiscal year 1994, $752,000;
fiscal years 1995-1998, $677,000 each year; fiscal years 1999-2000,
$680,000 each year; fiscal year 2001, $678,504; fiscal year 2002,
$665,000; fiscal year 2003, $675,580; fiscal year 2004, $604,413;
fiscal year 2005, $646,784; fiscal year 2006, $672,210; fiscal year
2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $500,472; and fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$469,000 per year. A total of $11,800,963 has been appropriated.
Both programs--IMPACT and CINTRAFOR--were formally reviewed by an
external review team with a representative from NIFA in August 2004.
Both were found to be satisfactorily achieving their goals.
On-site reviews are conducted annually of the University of
Washington component of the project through annual meetings of the
project's Executive Board and attended by NIFA and the Washington State
University component through the grant competition evaluation where the
NIFA project director is involved.
The original goal of this research was the application of leading-
edge information technologies, including high-performance computing, to
advance agricultural sciences and quickly bring research results to
farmers and the general public. Spatially balanced, complete-block
experimental designs have been created for 15 treatments and
replications in agronomic crops and recently extended to vineyards; a
hyperspectral soil data base has been developed; a real-time nitrogen
management model, Adapt-N, has been linked to a Web interface; using
widely dispersed rain gauge data and radar-based precipitation
estimates, high resolution precipitation estimates are now generated
and provided daily to farmers using a Web interface; economic
investment models accommodate stochastic events, such as climate change
and insect infestations; and data-mining techniques are used to make
weather event predictions that are spatially and temporally explicit.
Additionally, this project has supported six graduate student theses
and generated more than 30 peer-reviewed scientific papers.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2003. The
appropriation for fiscal year 2003 was $248,375; for fiscal year 2004,
$221,684; for fiscal year 2005, $239,072; for fiscal year 2006,
$236,610; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $176,754; and
for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $131,000 per year. The total amount
appropriated is $1,384,495.
Research is conducted at Cornell University's Theory Center, at
various Cornell University laboratories, and in experiment station and
producer fields. With extension of the Adapt-N nitrogen tool, work is
also being conducted in Iowa.
The project is subject to a thorough institutional peer review
during preparation of the grant proposal. Submitted proposals undergo
merit review by one or more agency scientists. In 2004, an agency-led
on-site review of the research was conducted. The review team
encouraged broader marketing of their activities and eventual
development of one or two signature projects that fully exploit the
computational resources available. The principal researcher and other
institutional representatives met with agency staff in 2008 to review
project progress.
cool season legume research, idaho, north dakota, and washington
The original goals of this project were to improve efficiency and
sustainability of cool season food legumes through multi-disciplinary
research directed at high priority issues affecting cool season food
legumes. The program was to develop new and strengthen regional
collaborative approaches in research and technology transfer. While the
overarching goals remain the same, specific objectives are revised
annually and prioritized through consultation among researchers,
industry representatives, and farmers. In one outcome, phenolic and
flavenoid compounds have been tracked to assess antioxidant activity to
help explain the cancer prevention properties of pulse legumes.
Extracts of specific legumes have been confirmed to inhibit cancers of
the colon, liver, stomach, and tongue. Compounds are being isolated
from green and yellow pea, lentil, and chickpea and their activity is
being confirmed. Processing of the legume seed with steam appears to
improve the appearance, texture, and retention of antioxidant activity.
This research has complemented work done to investigate the retention
of antioxidant capacity in extruded products made from legume flours.
Extruded snacks containing 65 percent of lentil or dry pea, along with
selected natural food ingredients and potato starch, were prepared in
the laboratory and sent to a certified laboratory in Canada to
determine the glycemic index (GI) using human subjects. These legume-
based foods offer great alternatives for populations suffering from
health problems, such as type two diabetes, obesity, colon cancer, and
heart disease.
Cool season food legume trials across the northern plains provided
critical information for producers about high yielding legume varieties
with good quality traits. These data will help decision makers improve
yields 5 to 10 percent and benefit the industry with a better quality
end product.
Lentil and pea selections for adaptation, agronomic, quality,
disease tolerance are ongoing. Several mapping populations are now in
development or are in use to more quickly identify powdery mildew
resistance. Other genetic markers have been identified to improve
efficiency of breeding for resistance to Fusarium and Aphanomyces fungi
and of high-yielding pea cultivars. These new methods have increased
throughput, accelerating powdery mildew resistance screening of 24
cultivars, 17 lines, and 582 accessions of pea. No immune genotypes
were found, but a range of susceptibility was identified. Leveillula
taurica, the chickpea powdery mildew pathogen was also identified for
the first time in the Pacific Northwest. Pea seed treatments fungicides
were found to reduce root rot incidence and severity and increase
yield.
The critical weed-free period for chickpea and lentil and the
associated yield losses has been shown to vary across cultivars are now
better understood. These data will help growers with decisions on
herbicide use, application timing and may result in a better return on
herbicide inputs or less herbicide being used.
A system has been launched to track the movement of the winged pea
aphid into the Palouse region of Washington and Idaho using
geospatially referenced insect traps. It is expected that this system
will result in reduced insecticide use and the associated environmental
and public health benefits and reduced production cost.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991 with
appropriations for fiscal year 1991 of $375,000; fiscal years 1992-
1993, $387,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $364,000; fiscal year 1995,
$103,000; fiscal years 1996 through 2000, $329,000 per year; fiscal
year 2001, $328,276; fiscal year 2002, $321,000; fiscal year 2003,
$333,816; fiscal year 2004, $536,814; fiscal year 2005, $564,448;
fiscal year 2006, $558,360; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008,
$416,067; fiscal year 2009, $235,000; and fiscal year 2010, $350,000. A
total of $6,904,781 has been appropriated in the life of the project.
This research is being conducted at agricultural experiment station
locations in Idaho, Washington, and North Dakota. The funds are awarded
competitively among scientists from the participating States.
The project is evaluated annually by an advisory panel of
university and industry experts. Proposals are peer reviewed at the
performing institutions and by senior agency technical staff. An on-
site review of the project was conducted by a senior member of agency's
technical staff in 2004. A strategic planning session was held in
February 2006 in Spokane, Washington, to assess current research needs
for cool season pulse crops. The current research priorities are based
on the conclusions from that meeting. The next external peer review
panel and program review by the Industry Research Committee will be
held in February of 2010. The research priorities identified at that
workshop will be reflected in the program application for 2010.
cotton insect management and fiber quality, georgia
The objectives of this project are to improve the quality of cotton
produced in Georgia and other southeastern States and to test a new
experimental gin. This research focuses on areas that integrate levels
of biological organization such as population ecology and the biology
and ecology of transgenic organisms in agroecosystems, along with the
more traditional pest management tactics to sustain cotton production
in Georgia and the southeastern region. Substantial progress has been
made toward achieving the overall project goals including maintaining
fiber quality, understanding the biology and ecology of emerging pests,
improving sampling of emerging pests and establishing management
thresholds, improving management tactics for emerging insect pests, and
continuing surveillance of the farmscape for shifts in pests. A cotton
entomologist has been hired and is currently establishing a laboratory.
Several studies have been completed evaluating recommended thresholds
and assessing the possibility of using variable thresholds depending on
the phenology of the crop. Another study has been conducted examining
the possible use of barrier crops, such as grain sorghum and Sudan
grass, to reduce colonization of cotton fields and limit crop damage.
Work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2006 with an
appropriation of $489,060; $0 in fiscal year 2007; $368,402 in fiscal
year 2008; and $346,000 per year in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The
total amount appropriated is $1,549,463.
This research is being conducted primarily at the Coastal Plain
Experiment Station located at Tifton, Georgia. However, collaborative
work has expanded several of the studies into other States in the
Southeast.
Each of the annual project proposals was subjected to peer review
performing institution's peer review and was reviewed by senior agency
technical staff. Results of this project have been presented at the
Beltwide Cotton Research Conferences, meetings of the Entomological
Society of America, and at numerous regional meetings of growers and
commodity groups.
cranberry/blueberry disease and breeding, new jersey
The work is focused on identification and monitoring of insect
pests on blueberries and cranberries; the identification, breeding, and
incorporation of superior germplasm into horticulturally desirable
genotypes; identification and determination of several fungal fruit-
rotting species; identification of root-rot resistant cranberry
genotypes; and identification of human health benefits from cranberry
and blueberry consumption. Overall, research has been focused on the
attainment of cultural management methods that are environmentally
compatible, while reducing blueberry and cranberry crop losses.
This project involves insects and diseases having major impacts on
New Jersey's cranberry and blueberry industries, but the findings are
being shared with experts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and New England.
Over 75 blueberry selections with wild blueberry accessions
resistant to secondary mummy berry infections have been moved into
advanced testing. The biology and seasonal life history of spotted
fireworm on cranberries has been determined. A pheromone trap-based
monitoring system for cranberry fruitworm was developed and further
refined for commercialization. Blueberry fruit volatiles attractive to
blueberry maggots were identified and tested in the field. Researchers
have planted over 4,500 cranberry progeny for evaluation. Seven major
fruit-rotting fungal species were identified, and their incidence in 10
major cultivars of blueberry and cranberry were determined. It is
likely that resistance to fruit rot is specific to fungal species.
Investigators have developed a product that is ready for field testing
which uses current season remote sensing data to predict the incidence
of fruit rot in cranberry.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
year 1985, $100,000; fiscal years 1986 and 1987, $95,000 per year;
fiscal years 1988 and 1989, $260,000 per year; fiscal year 1990,
$275,000; fiscal years 1991 to 1993, $260,000 per year; fiscal year
1994, $244,000; fiscal years 1995 to 2000, $220,000 per year; fiscal
year 2001 $219,516; fiscal year 2002, $216,000; fiscal year 2003
$234,466; fiscal year 2004 $209,755; fiscal year 2005, $352,160; fiscal
year 2006, $643,500; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $479,619;
for fiscal year 2009, $451,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $550,000. A
total of $6,785,016 has been appropriated.
This research is being conducted at the New Jersey Agricultural
Experiment Station.
This project is evaluated annually based on the annual progress
report and discussions with the principal investigator. It has been
determined that progress in the development of new agricultural
opportunities and use of decision-making tools for farmers and
entrepreneurs is satisfactory. The agency conducted an on-site
evaluation of the project in April 2006. In addition, evaluation of
this project is conducted annually based on the annual progress report
and discussions with the principal investigator. It has been determined
that progress in the development of new agricultural opportunities and
use of decision-making tools for farmers and entrepreneurs is
satisfactory.
cranberry/blueberry, massachusetts
The original goal of this research was to use molecular genetics to
reduce dependence on chemical pesticides in cranberry production. An
additional goal was to use molecular genetic techniques to identify
potential biological control agents that could be used to further
decrease dependency on the use of synthetic pesticides in cranberry
production. Good progress has been made toward achieving both of these
goals. Molecular markers have been developed that differentiate between
early and late emerging dodder populations. These markers have been
used to identify field populations of the different strains, and trials
have been initiated to determine the best timing of herbicide
applications to provide complete control of dodder. Field samples have
been taken from both wild and cultivated cranberry, and various strains
of Actinomycete fungi have been isolated. These organisms will be
evaluated under greenhouse and field conditions for the ability to
suppress the growth of fungi pathogenic to cranberry and blueberry.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999, and the
appropriation for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 was $150,000 per year; in
fiscal year 2001, $174,615; in fiscal year 2002, $172,000; in fiscal
year 2003, $170,882; in fiscal year 2004, $153,091; in fiscal year
2005, $151,776; in fiscal year 2006, $158,400; in fiscal year 2007, $0;
in fiscal year 2008, $118,167; in fiscal year 2009, $111,000; and in
fiscal year 2010, $160,000. A total of $1,669,931 has been
appropriated.
Research is being conducted at a University of Massachusetts
Research and Extension Center.
A site visit was made by senior agency technical staff in July
2003, and a merit review was conducted in April 2007. It was determined
that the investigators are making progress toward the achievement of
their stated objectives. In addition, evaluation of this project is
conducted annually based on the annual progress report and discussions
with the principal investigator.
crop integration and production, south dakota
The objectives of this grant are to develop crop alternatives for
which there is no governmental commodity support but which would be
economically sustainable in no tillage conditions of South Dakota,
North Dakota, and Nebraska. The research is designed to develop
production management systems for alternative crops in western
Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota that are nitrogen producing
and that also fit into a no tillage dry land crop rotation system.
Researchers have focused on examining characteristics of
alternative crops relative to their potential to improve cropping
systems. The factors evaluated included the ability of the crop to
reduce nitrogen needs, disrupt pest cycles, and produce products with
adequate economic return. The information from this research will be
used to assess the nutritional and economic viability of these crops as
food, feedstuffs, forage, energy, or green manure sources. Nebraska
researchers have initiated beef feedlot feeding trials. Some swine
ration research using pulse crops and oilseed meals as feed ingredients
are being conducted; this presents a large potential market for pulse
crops, particularly these corps that do not meet the food grade
standard.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2002, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 2002 was $200,000; for fiscal year 2003,
$273,213; for fiscal year 2004, $268,407; for fiscal year 2005,
$294,624; for fiscal year 2006, $297,000; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for
fiscal year 2008, $223,425; for fiscal year 2009, $258,000; and for
fiscal year 2010, $400,000. A total of $2,214,669 has been
appropriated.
The research is being conducted in South Dakota, North Dakota, and
Nebraska under semiarid conditions.
A peer review of the proposal was conducted by the submitting
institution, and senior agency science staff conducted a critical
review of the proposal. In 2008, an on-site review was conducted by
senior agency technical staff.
crop pathogens, north carolina
This research will elucidate the genomics of high consequence
fungal plant pathogens and produce algorithms for tracking and mapping
the spread of crop pathogens, with the specific intent to determine if
the spread is natural or appears to be unusual. The study is directed
toward identifying regions of DNA diagnostic to the sub-species level,
as well as for pathogenicity, survival, and toxin production of three
high-consequence fungal pathogens: Mangaporthe oryzae, Aspergillus
flavus, and Rhizoctonia species.
Progress to date includes building phylogenetic relatedness maps of
several highly damaging plant pathogens and performing the systematic
work needed to turn this knowledge into accurate diagnostic tools. The
research on Rhizoctonia is develop DNA markers and microarray
technology to discern Rhizoctonia species from other biota in soils.
This project began in fiscal year 2003 with an appropriation of
$198,700; for fiscal year 2004, $177,944; for fiscal year 2005,
$250,976; for fiscal year 2006, $321,750; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for
fiscal year 2008, $240,306; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$225,000 per year. A total of $1,639,676 has been appropriated.
The research is being conducted at North Carolina State University.
The submitting institution conducts a peer review of the proposal
prior to submission. Additional merit review is conducted annually by
senior agency technical staff prior to making a funding recommendation.
dairy and meat goat research, texas
The objective of this grant focuses on defining the population
structure of goats in Texas and the Southeastern United States with an
ultimate aim of determining the genetic make-up, breed identification,
semen preservation, and embryo collection and storage.
In 2006, the researchers focused on capacity building in artificial
insemination and embryo transfer technologies at the International Goat
Research Center at their institution. The overall objectives for the
2008 project were: (1) to quantify genetic diversity within and among
15 goat breeds located in Texas and the southeastern United States; and
(2) to clarify the evolutionary genetic relationships among the 15 goat
breeds. However, in fiscal year 2009, the focus of the project changed
to defining the underlying molecular mechanisms that impact goat
fertility. The investigators have standardized techniques for cell
culture and biochemical analysis of cellular proteins by western
blotting and immunoreactivity. The National Program Leader overseeing
the progress of this project is satisfied with the progress and expects
the project objectives to be completed within the project duration.
Grants have been awarded through appropriated funds as follows:
$100,000 per year for fiscal years 1983-1985; $95,000 per year for
fiscal years 1986-1988; no funds were appropriated in fiscal year 1989;
$74,000 for fiscal year 1990; $75,000 per year for fiscal years 1991-
1993; $70,000 for fiscal year 1994; $63,000 per year for fiscal years
1995-2000; $62,861 for fiscal year 2001; $63,000 for fiscal year 2002;
$62,591 for fiscal year 2003; $56,664 for fiscal year 2004; $99,200 for
fiscal year 2005; $148,500 in fiscal year 2006; $0 in fiscal year 2007;
$111,216 in fiscal year 2008; $94,000 in fiscal year 2009; and $200,000
in fiscal year 2010. A total of $2,230,032 has been appropriated thus
far.
Research is being conducted at Prairie View Agricultural and
Mechanical University in Texas.
The current project was thoroughly reviewed at the time of
submission in 2009. The project progress is being monitored
continuously.
dairy farm profitability, pennsylvania
The objective of this grant is to identify and develop improved
dairy management practices that will help producers sustain and improve
the profitability of their operations by: improving the reliability and
enhancing the performance of next-generation anaerobic digesters by
developing psychrotolerant and acidotolerant microbial consortia
derived from acidic bogs; develop innovative sensing systems with
Internet enabled remote monitoring and process control to reduce
operator management requirements; defining digester designs based on
current best practices and next-generation digester enhancements,
building on the innovations developed in the first two objectives; and
assessing the dairy farm-level performance and profitability of these
digester designs for different dairy farm types and sizes and different
policy scenarios.
To date, current progress is focusing on the following four
objectives:
--Use the Profitability Assessment Dairy Tool (PA Dairy Tool) and the
Income Over Feed Cost (IOFC) Tool to identify bottlenecks that
limit dairy farm profitability on at least 50 farms over 2
years. (http://www.das.psu.edu/dairy/pa-tool and http://
dairyalliance.psu.edu/resources/income-over-feed-cost-tool/)
Uniqueness of the Pennsylvania Dairy Tool
Several features of the Pennsylvania Dairy Tool are novel and
innovative including:
--an overall, big picture assessment of an operation's
profitability combined with drill-down specificity at the
basic management level,
--minimal data input to generate results,
--unbiased assessment of the factors limiting revenue generation on
the dairy operation,
--simple color-coded results that immediately focus the attention
of the user on the most critical management areas,
--useable across herds of different sizes, different breeds,
different management styles, and different regions,
--estimation of revenue loss from each operational management area,
--the ability to estimate revenue losses against both industry
benchmarks and the dairy operator's goals,
--the ability to build a database to assess farm management changes
and dairy profitability.
--Determine relationships between operational and capital efficiency
and overall return on assets of high profit--greater than 4
percent--level farms.
--Identify strategic changes that will result in improvement in IOFC,
cows per worker, milk sold per worker, internal herd growth
(IHG) and asset turnover ratio in order to increase overall
farm profitability--using data from objective 2 and high profit
level herds.
--Teach dairy producers and advisors about strategies--objective 3--
for improving farm profitability through ongoing training with
Dairy Profit Teams, a series of webinars, and quarterly
newsletters.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2001. The
appropriations amount to the following: fiscal year 2001, $284,373;
fiscal year 2002, $294,000; fiscal year 2003, $496,750; fiscal year
2004, $444,363; fiscal year 2005, $468,224; fiscal year 2006, $495,000;
fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $372,375; fiscal year 2009,
$349,000; and fiscal year 2010, $372,000. In total, this research has
received $3,576,085.
The work is being carried out at the Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, Pennsylvania.
The productivity of the research team has been documented through
the publication of many scientific papers in peer reviewed journals,
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture publications, and others.
Additionally, the agency closely reviews each year's proposals and
works with the project director to correct any deficiencies.
Additionally, progress reports to the Current Research Information
System (CRIS) are being monitored for satisfactory accomplishments and
timelines.
delta rural revitalization, mississippi
The objective of the grant is to support basic and applied research
relevant to efforts to expand economic development opportunities for
farms, families, communities, and residents of the Mississippi Delta
region, increase adult literacy, and address healthy living issues.
The project has progressed through several phases. Phase I research
produced a baseline assessment of economic, social, and political
factors that enhance or impede the region's progress. Phase II research
evaluated the potential for entrepreneurship and small business
creation and assessed the availability and use of information
technology in the Delta. In the current phase, major new applied
research efforts have been launched.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
year 1989, $175,000; fiscal year 1990, $173,000; fiscal years 1991-
1993, $175,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $164,000; fiscal years 1995-
2000, $148,000 per year; fiscal year 2001, $204,549; fiscal year 2002,
$201,000; fiscal year 2003, $203,668; fiscal year 2004, $182,914;
fiscal year 2005, $244,032; fiscal year 2006, $247,500; fiscal year
2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $186,684; and fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$176,000 per year. A total of $3,747,430 has been appropriated.
The research is being carried out by the Southern Rural Development
Center, housed at Mississippi State University, and sub-contractors.
The Southern Rural Development Center Director is the project director,
and he has established collaborations with the Mid-Delta Developers'
Association, the Delta Council's Adult Literacy Program, the Delta
Regional Authority, the Delta Data Center, the Mississippi Development
Authority, and regional Chambers of Commerce.
Proposals are submitted for internal review, evaluation, and merit
review within the agency as they are received. The principal
investigators and project managers submit periodic updates to the
agency to document progress and impacts. For the current phase of the
project, a team prioritized research questions so that the research
investment interfaces closely with regional needs and supports outreach
education.
designing foods for health, texas
The objectives of the grant are to: (1) optimize the health
promoting bioactive compounds through genetics; (2) assess the health
benefits of these compounds; (3) isolate, purify and characterize the
bioactive compounds; and (4) develop technologies for pre/post-harvest
and processing.
The interdisciplinary team of scientists has expertise in the areas
of breeding, pre- and post-harvest physiology, nutrition, chemistry,
biochemistry, biotechnology, biomedical sciences, and molecular
genetics. This inter-disciplinary research team provided need-based
outcomes evolved from stakeholders. Integrating efficient drip
irrigation, nitrogen and potassium fertilizer strategies will lead to
optimal quality and yield of high cash-value vegetable crops in
southwest Texas.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 1999 was $250,000; for fiscal year 2000,
$318,750; for fiscal year 2001, $561,761; for fiscal year 2002,
$690,000; for fiscal year 2003, $819,638; for fiscal year 2004,
$1,342,035; for fiscal year 2005 $1,611,008; for fiscal year 2006,
$1,980,000; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $1,474,605;
and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $1,385,000 per year. The total
appropriation was $11,817,797.
Research is conducted at the Vegetable and Fruit Improvement Center
and other research centers within the Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station of the Texas A&M University System. Some research is conducted
at the University of Houston, Victoria, and the University of Arizona.
The 2009 proposal was reviewed in September 2009 by NIFA staff who
determined the faculty and facilities were adequate for completion of
the proposed project.
detection and food safety, alabama
The goal of this project was to reduce the incidence of food-borne
illness through the use of sensor chips that assess the safety of food
items as they moved through the food chain. Work in 2001 was aimed at
developing a hand-held sensor that will allow food processors to detect
the presence of bacterial pathogens and toxins in food within 100
seconds. Laboratory tests in 2003 demonstrated faster response times
while detecting as few as 300 Salmonella cells in 1 milliliter of
liquid. Test kits have also been commercialized for detecting a
livestock feed constituent that transmits bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, commonly referred to as ``mad cow disease.''
Furthermore, investigators have demonstrated capability with radio-
frequency identification tags and have patented and licensed several
new approaches to sensing pathogens, including Salmonella and anthrax
that promise the capability to detect a single bacteria or spore. Tests
with patented magneto-strictive particle sensors in 2005 confirm one-
cell sensitivity. A new, more sensitive Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent
Assay (ELISA) test strip for anthrax has been prototyped. A patent
application has been submitted for a new micro-fluidic device that can
bring a single bacteria cell or spore in contact with a nano-scale
sensor. At this point in 2008, one spin-off company has been
established and four other companies are selling commercialized
products resulting from this work. Recently, a sixth licensed
technology dramatically improves the software diagnostic capability of
off-the-shelf electronic noses used in defense and in the food
industry.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999 under
the Food Safety, Alabama grant. The appropriation for fiscal year 1999
was $300,000; for fiscal year 2000, $446,250; for fiscal year 2001,
$519,854; for fiscal year 2002, $608,000; for fiscal year 2003,
$1,117,688; for fiscal year 2004, $1,000,065; for fiscal year 2005,
$1,091,200; for fiscal year 2006, $1,134,540; and for fiscal year 2007,
$0. In fiscal year 2008, the project was renamed the Detection and Food
Safety, Alabama grant with an appropriation of $1,861,875; and for
fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $1,748,000 per year. The total amount
appropriated for this program is $11,575,472.
Research is conducted at the Auburn Research Center for Detection
and Food Safety, Auburn University.
The project is subject to a thorough institutional peer review
during preparation of the grant proposal. Each project proposal
receives merit review by one or more agency scientists. All food safety
special-grant projects were reviewed at an investigator-attended
workshop held at agency offices in August 2005. The project's principal
investigator provided a seminar for agency personnel in 2009. It was
noted that the project is proceeding according to its projected time
line.
drought mitigation, nebraska
The objective of the grant is to reduce the risk to agriculture and
society associated with drought: promoting and conducting research on
drought mitigation and preparedness technologies; improving
coordination of drought-related activities and actions within and
between levels of government; and assisting in the development,
dissemination, and implementation of appropriate mitigation and
preparedness technologies in the public and private sectors.
The work supported by this grant received an appropriation of
$200,000 per year in fiscal years 1995 through 2000; $199,560 in fiscal
year 2001; $196,000 in fiscal year 2002; $223,538 in fiscal year 2003;
$200,808 in fiscal year 2004; $211,296 in fiscal year 2005; $219,780 in
fiscal year 2006; $0 in fiscal year 2007; $372,375 in fiscal year 2008;
$469,000 in fiscal year 2009; and $600,000 in fiscal year 2010 for a
total appropriation of $3,892,357.
The research is conducted at the University of Nebraska--Lincoln.
The National Drought Mitigation Center in Lincoln, Nebraska, is
recognized around the world as a leader in research, education, and
outreach for drought. The Center also hosts preparation of the Drought
Monitor--a product used to determine drought relief in USDA.
An on-site review of the project was conducted in 2005, and a
follow-up review was conducted at the NIFA National Water Conference in
February 2006. Since then, the project leaders have conducted informal
meetings with the National Program Leader assigned to this project in
Washington, DC. The project also is reviewed each year when the
proposal is submitted for funding. The project was reviewed as part of
a Programmatic Review conducted by the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture in 2009.
efficient irrigation, new mexico and texas
The objective of the grant is to increase the efficiency of
agriculture and urban landscape irrigation and encourage the
development of efficient water markets in the Rio Grande Basin.
Modeling technology aids are helping irrigation district managers
understand likely financial outcomes of changes in water-delivery rates
to agricultural, municipal, and industrial users. Data being gathered
from rehabilitation projects for irrigation districts with leaking
canals and pipelines and inefficient pumping facilities are estimated
to save 61,275 acre-feet of water per year. Significant reductions in
sugarcane water use are possible using efficient application methods
that improve uniformity of distribution and optimum scheduling,
including amount and timing of water application. Substantial water
savings have been facilitated in vegetable and citrus production in the
Lower Rio Grande Valley using soil moisture monitoring, various
cultural practices on crop water use, and irrigation recommendations.
The potential water savings may reach 19,528 million gallons per year,
assuming 50 percent of landscapes in El Paso are irrigated with
recycled water. Several chili pepper cultivars were found to be more
salt tolerant than others; this indicates that recycled water may be
used for irrigating chili peppers and freshwater can be saved for more
sensitive crops. Soil salinization in urban green spaces is being
studied in El Paso. This study is expected to establish soil assessment
and handling guidelines for construction of sports fields and irrigated
urban landscapes. Such guidelines will help improve water-use
efficiency and wise use of fiscal resources.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2001, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 2001 was $1,185,386; for fiscal year
2002, $1,176,000; for fiscal year 2003, $1,490,250; for fiscal year
2004, $1,342,035; for fiscal year 2005, $1,488,000; for fiscal year
2006, $1,658,250; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008,
$1,235,292; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $1,160,000 per year.
The total amount appropriated is $11,895,213.
Texas A&M University and New Mexico State University jointly
conduct this research through the Water Resources Institute at Texas
A&M University.
An agency scientist conducts a merit review of the proposal
submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis. A
conference of the co-investigators was held in August 10-13, 2009. The
site review involved a series of presentations by project leaders that
described project objectives and accomplishments for the previous year.
The site visit review of this project allowed the agency scientists to
ensure that objectives of the project were coordinated with the other
three projects in the basin. The research team is a multi-disciplinary
group including, but not limited to economists, engineers, plant, soil,
and atmospheric scientists. Agency scientist(s) intend to participate
in a similar conference in 2010 to continue evaluating its progress.
emerald ash borer, ohio
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $550,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
environmental research, new york
The objectives of this research are (1) Improve estimates of the
magnitudes of biogeochemical fluxes of Nitrogen (N), (P), and sediments
from the New York portion of the Susquehanna River basin into the
Susquehanna, and ultimately to the impaired Chesapeake Bay; (2) Assess
controls on nutrient pollution, particularly N, in rural landscapes
with a mixture of forested and agricultural land uses; (3) Evaluate the
importance of agricultural sources of nutrient pollution in the context
of all sources in the watershed; and (4) Assess the effects of climate
variability and climate change on fluxes of N, P, and sediment from the
rural landscape.
There are three main research areas for the project. Research
activities on Agricultural Biogeochemistry are being conducted at the
Harford Animal Science Teaching and Research in Cortland County, New
York. Research on Atmospheric Deposition is being conducted at the
Connecticut Hill Game Management Area in New York State. Integrated
modeling of nutrient and sediment sources and sinks across spatial
scales is being done at Cornell University. Each of the three research
areas has collected the essential background and historical information
for their respective sites and established specific monitoring
activities.
At the Harford Animal Science Teaching and Research Center, ongoing
and historical data available include water quality from 15 wells, soil
test results and crop yields, manure and fertilizer applications
records for 20 years, nutrient inputs via animal feed, animal densities
and field management. Data to be collected for this project include:
repair and sampling of wells monthly for a year; analysis of dissolved
organic nitrogen, nitrate, ammonium, monthly storm events, and surface
samples from drainage creeks and nearby streams; analysis for
sediments, nitrite, nitrate, ammonium, total dissolved nitrogen,
soluble reactive phosphorus, total dissolved phosphorus, and
particulate nitrogen and phosphorus; and monitoring deposition of
ammonia and ammonium along gradients away from the farm site, using
both bulk deposition measurements and passive samplers for ammonia gas
in the atmosphere.
At the Connecticut Hill Atmospheric and Precipitation Chemistry
Research and Monitoring Facility, historical data available include a
30-year record of wet and dry nitrogen deposition, comparative studies
of dry deposition of nitrogen and sulfur species between measurements
through the fall season versus inferentially measured estimates, and
isotopic studies of wet and dry deposition to understand the sources of
nitrogen deposition, and the impact of changing emissions of sulfate
and nitrate on wet and dry deposition of sulfur, nitrogen, and acidity.
The work supported under this grant began in 1991 with an
appropriation of $297,000; $575,000 per year in fiscal years 1992-1993;
$540,000 in fiscal year 1994; $486,000 per year in fiscal years 1995
through 1999; $400,000 in fiscal year 2000; $399,120 in fiscal year
2001; $391,000 in fiscal year 2002; $392,433 in fiscal year 2003;
$350,917 in fiscal year 2004; $372,992 in fiscal year 2005; $369,270 in
fiscal year 2006; $0 in fiscal year 2007; $275,061 in fiscal year 2008;
and $258,000 per year in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The total amount
appropriated is $7,883,793.
The last evaluation showed progress in producing a series of
creative spin-up efforts emphasizing field and laboratory studies by
individuals or groups of Cornell faculty that have led towards a better
understanding of the sources and sinks of nutrients and sediments in
the Susquehanna River Basin. The program has also been successful in
integrating models of nutrient and sediment sources and sinks across
spatial scales. The program has also made progress towards evaluating
the importance of atmospheric deposition and agricultural sources of
nutrient pollution in the context of all sources in the watershed. The
Cornell community has the broad expertise in the disciplines required
to achieve their goals. The program is designed to foster creative new
research and integrate the results with current research at Cornell
into an overall, comprehensive effort. The Susquehanna River Basin has
proven to be an ideal laboratory for better understanding of the
factors that control nitrogen fluxes from rural landscapes with mixed
agriculture and forest lands.
environmental risk factors/cancer, new york
The objectives of the grant are to evaluate the scientific
information on pesticides, other chemicals, and diet, and the
relationships of these to breast cancer risk. As a result of the
proposed work, health professionals, extension educators, community
leaders, and the public will increase their understanding of the
relationship between overweight and obesity and breast cancer risk and
will improve their capacity to take an environmental approach to breast
cancer risk reduction through obesity prevention in communities.
Focus group data of over 200 study participants showed the
proportion of participants meeting walking goals increased from 38 to
65 percent over 10 weeks with the greatest relative step increase by
those who walked least at baseline. Ninety-three percent reported
positive dietary changes. In the current project year, the proposed
intervention and data collection objectives have been met; the
intervention, Small Steps are Easier Together, has been implemented in
five new worksites and three comparison worksites and pre- and post-
intervention data have been collected from all sites. In addition,
information on the environmental approach for obesity prevention
developed and implemented by this research was disseminated at multiple
scientific and professional meetings, reaching 525 researchers, health
professionals, educators and community leaders.
The work supported by this grant began in 1997, and in fiscal years
1997-1999, $100,000 was appropriated per year; fiscal year 2000,
$170,000; fiscal year 2001, $226,501; fiscal year 2002, $222,000;
fiscal year 2003, $220,557; fiscal year 2004, $197,826; fiscal year
2005, $217,248; fiscal year 2006, $214,830; fiscal year 2007, $0;
fiscal year 2008, $159,873; and fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $150,000
per year. A total of $2,228,835 has been appropriated.
The work is done at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
A university peer review of the project was last completed in May
2009. In addition, this project has undergone continuous evaluations by
the agency and project researchers. Conclusions from these have
informed planning efforts for the education component including the
streamlining of the environmental intervention, e.g. Small Steps are
Easier Together for easy local application by community educators with
minimal assistance.
environmentally safe products, vermont
The objectives of the grant are to develop new applications for
``waste'' products that may lead to novel products or approaches to
solving environmental problems including the development of an
environmentally friendly wood finish, coating formulation system, the
development of a deicer from by-products of the cheese whey production
process, the use of iron slag wastes as absorptive materials to capture
phosphorous in agricultural runoff to then be used in horticultural
applications, and the use of waste products as energy sources to
improve efficiency of greenhouse operations.
Five prototype wood coating mixes were formulated and have been
optimized for maximum performance in industrial settings. The chemical
characteristics of the formulations have been analyzed, and the coating
materials have been applied on experimental wood samples. A workshop
has been built which is designed for this project. The safe wood
finishes perform better in terms of water resistance, drying time, and
pencil scratch hardness compared with the same type of commercial
products. The analyses on mold resistant properties and ultraviolet
resistance of the prototypes have been completed. A U.S. patent
application for formulation and production of the environmentally safe
wood finish products was filed in July 2002. Commercial application
trials have been carried out at two of Ethan Allen Furniture
operations. An organic salt, potassium acetate, has been produced
through a two-stage fermentation process at lab scale, and work is
ongoing to optimize the process. This by-product of the cheese making
process serves to reduce road ice and is biologically degradable in the
environment. Other by-products of the cheese manufacturing process,
whey protein and lactate, are being evaluated as coatings and nutrient
sources for biocontrol fungi, respectively. Whey protein-based wood and
paper adhesives have been developed with much improved strength. Scaled
up studies on the plywood adhesives were performed. Analyses on
functional properties of the adhesives were conducted. A peer-reviewed
manuscript on the findings of this project has been submitted to
Journal of Polymer Sciences.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000. The
appropriation for fiscal year 2000 was $200,000; for fiscal year 2001,
$245,459; for fiscal year 2002, $240,000; for fiscal year 2003,
$243,408; for fiscal year 2004, $745,575; for fiscal year 2005,
$740,032; for fiscal year 2006, $742,500; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for
fiscal year 2008, $335,634; for fiscal year 2009, $188,000; and for
fiscal year 2010, $250,000. The total amount appropriated is
$3,930,608.
This work is being carried out in the College of Agricultural and
Life Sciences, the University of Vermont.
Evaluation of this project is conducted annually based on the
annual progress report and discussions with the principal investigator
and colleagues, as appropriate. The review is conducted by the NIFA
staff who has determined that this research is in accordance with the
mission of the agency.
expanded wheat pasture, oklahoma
The goal of this research was to discover and disseminate
scientific information that decreases production risk and improves
profitability of feeder cattle and grain production from dual purpose
winter wheat. This work has already shown how the use of feed
supplements can increase net profit from cattle grazing on wheat
pasture. The study has identified management practices, for example,
date of planting, cultivar selection, grazing intensity, and date of
cattle removal, that produce the optimum grain yield and cattle gain. A
decision support microcomputer model, titled ``Wheat and Wheat/Stocker
Production Planner'' has been developed for use by producers and
extension educators as a decision aid to help producers assess income
risk in the operation. Wheat cultivars called GRAZEnGRAIN that maintain
high grain yields after being grazed have been identified. Studies were
conducted to further develop supplementation strategies for growing
cattle on wheat pasture, characterize the physiological basis for
differences in finishing performance of feeder cattle off wheat pasture
and determine the effects of wheat breeding practices, varietal
improvement, and cultural and management practices on productivity of
the wheat/stocker cattle enterprise. Data evaluating adipose tissue
development indicate that steers grazing winter wheat pasture will gain
at a greater rate and start to deposit more intramuscular fat at a
younger age compared with steers grazing dormant native rangeland.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1989, and
appropriations were as follows: fiscal year 1989, $400,000; fiscal year
1990, $148,000; fiscal year 1991, $275,000; fiscal years 1992-1993,
$337,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $317,000; fiscal years 1995-2000,
$285,000 per year; fiscal year 2001, $292,355; fiscal year 2002
$286,000; fiscal year 2003, $307,985; fiscal year 2004 $275,366; fiscal
year 2005, $272,800; fiscal year 2006, $319,770; fiscal year 2007, $0;
fiscal year 2008, $238,320; and fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $223,000
per year. A total of $5,962,596 has been appropriated.
Large replicated pasture studies are being conducted at wheat
pasture research units near the Oklahoma State University campus, at
the Wheat Pasture Research Unit, 596 acres near Marshall, Oklahoma,
which is 30 miles west of the Oklahoma State University campus, and the
Sparks Beef Research Center, an Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment
Station facility near campus. As a component of the Oklahoma
Agricultural Experiment Station wheat breeding program, breeding
nurseries have been established at Marshall using a graze-plus-grain
management system. In addition, small-plot wheat variety performance
tests are conducted at about 18 locations across the State either on
Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station facilities or on private farm
land.
Senior agency technical staff reviewed the annual project proposal
and progress reports and concluded that the project was appropriately
focused and addressing the stated objectives. A comprehensive review
including site visit is still under consideration for 2010.
expert integrated pest management decision support system
The objective of this project is to streamline the exchange of pest
management information within and between Federal and State government
agencies, research scientists, extension educators, agricultural
industries, commodity groups, and agricultural producers. The Expert
Pest Management Information Decision Support System has been moved to a
Web-based system, with access to all of the originally proposed
databases now complete. This system has now been seamlessly integrated
into the agency's Regional Integrated Pest Management Centers
Information System at www.ipmcenters.org. Semi-automated updating of
the databases is now in place as a cooperative effort among the
agencies responsible for collecting the information. The Center for
Integrated Pest Management maintains the databases for the Pipeline,
CropLife Pesticide Use Data, Crop Profiles, Pest Management Strategic
Plans, Crop Timelines, the NIFA Food Quality Protection Act Research
Projects Database, the NIFA Contacts Database, the aggregated National
Agriculture Statistics Service Pesticide Use Data, a new Interagency
Integrated Pest Management Projects Database and a new Proposal/Project
Management System. The latter is used by the Regional Integrated Pest
Management Centers to track and seamlessly manage all Request for
Applications for which they have responsibility, from Request for
Applications publication, through proposal submission and review, to
project reporting locally and dynamically into the Interagency
Integrated Pest Management Projects Database.
This work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1995, and
appropriations were as follows: in fiscal year 1995, $172,000; in
fiscal year 1996, $177,000 from this special grant plus $21,000 from
Research, Extension, and Education Evaluation Funds and $40,000 from
the Pesticide Impact Assessment Program; in fiscal year 1997, $165,425;
in fiscal years 1998-2000, $177,000 per year; in fiscal year 2001,
$176,611; in fiscal year 2002, $177,000; in fiscal year 2003, $175,850;
in fiscal year 2004, $158,062; in fiscal year 2005, $156,736; in fiscal
years 2006 and 2007, $155,430 per year; in fiscal year 2008, $153,915;
in fiscal year 2009, $154,000; and in fiscal year 2010, $156,000. Total
amount appropriated is $2,725,459.
The bulk of the work is carried out on the campus of North Carolina
State University in Raleigh, which collaborates with agricultural
scientists at land-grant universities throughout the United States. The
Center for Integrated Pest Management at North Carolina State
University manages the Web server where the pest management information
system is located.
Over the past 4 years, the Web development aspect of the project
has been evaluated annually. Currently, the annual review of the
project and goals is by a Web development committee composed of the
directors and Information Technology staff of the Regional Integrated
Pest Management Centers. Several key components of the project received
favorable reviews during a formal comprehensive review of the
Integrated Pest Management Centers in February of 2008. For 2009, the
project was competitively awarded and was reviewed prior to submission
by three independent reviewers and an external review panel.
floriculture, hawaii
The original goals of this research were to develop and
commercialize high yielding, disease and insect resistant floral
cultivars of anthurium, orchids, protea, flowering ginger, bird of
paradise, heliconia, ti leaves and other exotic tropical flower and
foliage varieties; address current technical constraints; and implement
effective marketing strategies.
More than 100 new anthurium hybrids are in individual plant
selection stage and eight selections in tissue culture are in advance
testing on cooperator farms. Protea resistant to the fungal pathogen,
Phytophthora cinnamomi, were obtained from South Africa, and this
germplasm is being incorporated into protea breeding lines. Seventeen
new resistant, tissue-culture propagated protea hybrids were released
to the public for a total of 101 new cultivars released since 1999.
Seventeen new Leucospermum hybrids were released since 2003. Tests
continue for Phytophthora cinnamomi resistance and extended vase life.
The orchid breeding program was intensified in 2004, and 39 crosses
have been germinated to date. Research on light enhancement has
shortened the production period for orchid flowering by four to six
weeks. Research was also focused on the development of post-harvest
handling practices and addressed quarantine issues. A post-harvest hot
air treatment was developed and proved effective in controlling
nematode and bacterial infections in anthurium plants and will
significantly reduce production costs. Studies determined effective
controls for a new pest, pink hibiscus mealybug. Over 4,400 Protea
cuttings were released to Hawaii growers; 15 new anthurium hybrids are
being evaluated on grower-cooperator farms; several new dendrobium
orchids are being tested for both potted and cut flower varieties. Nine
commercial orchid nurseries were assessed for fusarium diseases;
Fusarium proliferatum, F. oxysporum, F. solani, and F. subglutinans
were the most common pathogens. Most recently, a series of water and
fertilizer management audits at large nurseries found improper usage of
water and fertilizers. Results of an irrigation experiment on Anthurium
showed a substantial increase in flower yield by 35 percent and also an
increase in the proportion of large flowers size from 45 percent to 70
percent with several short pulses of fertigation compared to current
farm practices, resulting in a net revenue gain of approximately
$200,000 per acre each year. Additionally, composts using macadamia nut
shells and rubber chips as ingredients were demonstrated to be
appropriate alternative potting media for potted palms compared with
more expensive potting media sold commercially. Using controlled-
release fertilizers with a shorter time-release rate enabled faster
movement of nutrients into the potting media was shown to facilitate
faster intake by plants. Also it was found that a coir-cinder mixture
was an adequate potting media for dendrobium and oncidium orchids due
to its better water holding capacity; thus, lower the rate of
fertilizer release. These research results were presented at a national
conference and an abstract was published in HortScience.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1989 and the
following amounts have been appropriated: in fiscal year 1989,
$300,000; fiscal years 1990-1993, $296,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
$278,000; fiscal years 1995-2000, $250,000 per year; fiscal year 2001,
$249,450; fiscal year 2002, $400,000; fiscal year 2003, $397,400;
fiscal year 2004, $354,894; fiscal year 2005, $352,160; fiscal year
2006, $348,480; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $259,173;
fiscal year 2009, $243,000; and fiscal year 2010, $300,000. A total of
$6,166,557 has been appropriated since fiscal year 1989.
This research is being conducted by the College of Tropical
Agriculture and Human Resources at the University of Hawaii--Manoa at
locations in Honolulu and Hilo, and by the College of Agriculture,
Forestry and Natural Resource Management at the University of Hawaii at
locations in Hilo, with input from the floral crops industry on the
islands of Hawaii and Maui.
Each individual project proposal goes through a national peer merit
review managed by the applicant institution. Each proposal is peer
reviewed and ranked, and funding is provided only to the highest ranked
projects. Project accomplishments and proposed research objectives are
reviewed annually. In addition, project expenditures are monitored to
ensure that spending is consistent with approved project budgets and
with Federal regulations. Research results are also reviewed by members
of the Hawaii floriculture industry to ensure that priorities
identified by the industry and reflected in the request for proposals
are being addressed and progress toward achieving objectives are on
schedule. As new objectives are identified, they will be reviewed by
research administrators and members of the Hawaii floriculture
industry.
food and agriculture policy research institute, iowa, missouri, nevada,
wisconsin
The objectives of the grant are: (1) to provide information to help
public decision makers evaluate farm policy options; and (2) to enhance
capacity to conduct quantitative analysis of agricultural policy
issues.
The institutions maintain large econometric models and datasets
which are regularly updated to analyze farm and trade policy
alternatives and the impacts of various programs on several sub-sectors
of the agricultural economy. During the past year, the Food and
Agriculture Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at Missouri included an
annual 10-year outlook for agriculture--prepared every year since 1984,
agricultural policy scenarios requested by Congress at will,
Congressional briefings, and Congressional testimony. The final
projections for domestic and world agricultural markets are found in
FAPRI 2009 U.S. and World Agricultural Outlook. Each publication is
posted on their Web site (www.fapri.missouri.edu).
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
years 1984-1985, $450,000 per year; fiscal years 1986-1987, $357,000
per year; fiscal year 1988, $425,000; fiscal year 1989, $463,000;
fiscal year 1990, $714,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $750,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $705,000; fiscal years 1995-1996, $850,000 per year;
fiscal year 1997-2000, $800,000 per year; fiscal year, 2001, $947,910;
fiscal year 2002, $1,000,000; fiscal year 2003, $1,515,088; fiscal year
2004, 1,364,899; fiscal year 2005, $1,536,608; fiscal year 2006,
$1,595,880; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $1,191,600; fiscal
year 2009, $1,139,000; and fiscal year 2010, $1,339,000. The total
amount appropriated is 22,700,985.
The program is carried out at the Center for Agriculture and Rural
Development, Iowa State University, and the Center for National Food
and Agricultural Policy, University of Missouri.
Each year Iowa State University and the University of Missouri
publish the Food Agriculture Policy Institute U.S. and World
Agriculture Outlook which is assessed annually. A formal evaluation of
this program has not been conducted.
food and fuel initiative, iowa
The objectives of this grant focus on: (1) discovery of new value-
added food safety compounds in co-products to enhance economic
development opportunities; (2) Mycotoxin monitoring in co-products for
food and feed safety and mitigation strategies; and (3) economic
analysis, risk assessment and communication.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $297,900; $280,000 in fiscal year
2009; and $298,000 in fiscal year 2010. A total of $875,900 has been
appropriated.
This research is conducted at Iowa State University.
The submitted proposal for this new project was critically reviewed
in the summer of 2009 by the National Program Leader of NIFA and was
found to be scientifically sound.
food marketing policy center, connecticut
The objectives of the grant are the analysis of private strategies,
public policies, and food system performance to enhance economic
welfare; and, the development of food safety and related policies to
provide guidance for the control of safety risks and for significant
reduction of safety risks in the global food system.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1988. The
appropriations amount to the following: fiscal year 1988, $150,000;
fiscal year 1989, $285,000; fiscal year 1990, $373,000; fiscal years
1991-1993, $393,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $369,000; fiscal years
1995-1998, $332,000 per year; fiscal years 1999-2000, $400,000; fiscal
year 2001, $493,911; fiscal year 2002, $484,000; fiscal year 2003,
$486,815; fiscal year 2004, $581,548; fiscal year 2005, $579,328;
fiscal year 2006, $573,210; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008,
$426,990; and fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $401,000 per year. The total
amount appropriated for this project to date is $8,911,802.
Project work is being carried out at the University of Connecticut
and also at the University of Massachusetts and at cooperating
universities via the visiting fellows program.
Annual proposals for funding are peer reviewed for relevance and
scientific merit. The NIFA contact is also in regular contact with the
principal researcher at the key institution to discuss progress towards
meeting project objectives.
food safety, maine and oklahoma
The objectives of this project is to discover ways to improve the
safety and security of the Nation's food supply at all steps from farm
or ranch production through processing. The project will focus on
E.coli monitoring in cattle, L. Monocytogenes virulence, oregano as an
inhibitor of food borne pathogens, and the tracing of staphylococcal
enterotoxin along with a recombinant genetic method for detecting
prions in meat or meat by-products.
Researchers have demonstrated that injection of 0.1 percent
solution of ammonium hydroxide significantly affects aerobic and
anaerobic microbial populations in beef loins. Protocols have
successfully been developed for the detection of the various soy
products' DNA using the lectin gene with Real-time Polymerase chain
reaction. E. coli O157:H7 has been found to persist in young growing
spinach for up to two weeks, and the leaf morphology for spinach has
been found to play a role in bacterial colonization.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2002 with an
appropriation of $400,000; for fiscal year 2003, $620,938; for fiscal
year 2004, $555,702; for fiscal year 2005, $551,552; for fiscal year
2006, $546,480; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008,
$407,130; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $382,000 per year. A
total of $3,845,802 has been appropriated.
The research is being conducted at Oklahoma State University,
Agricultural Experiment Station in the Food and Agricultural Products
Research and Technology Center. The sensor technology proof of concept
research will be completed in Orono, Maine, at the Sensor Research and
Development Corporation.
An agency evaluation was conducted in 2009. The Project Director
met with the National Program staff at NIFA via a series of
teleconferences and gave a summary of the status of the project and
also presented the data that has been compiled to date.
food safety, texas
The objective of the grant is to develop a national and
international Electron Beam Food Research Center that will conduct
applied research focusing electron beam technology on food applications
and agriculturally related products. Specifically, the Center will host
research projects from industry, government, and academia, while
conducting outreach, training, and education in the science and
technology of electron beam-based irradiation.
To date, the Center has completed studies on the usage of electron
beams to inactivate viruses on cantaloupes and pathogens in lettuce and
spinach, and a provisional patent has been obtained for the use of E-
beam for the treatment and disinfection of municipal wastewater. In
addition, the researchers are using e-beam irradiation to develop novel
vaccines for Salmonella in poultry. A Salmonella vaccine patent has
been submitted in collaboration with USDA-Agricultural Research Service
scientists for use by poultry breeders, growers, and in hatcheries. E-
beam irradiation can be used to replace formalin, which is currently
used in vaccine production. Formalin has been classified as
``reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen''; Therefore, this
technology will likely improve the safety of vaccines. This has public
health implications and could be used to improve the safety of human
vaccines. In addition, use of the vaccine in live chickens will improve
the health of the chickens, thus reducing the need for antibiotics and
may result in lower levels of Salmonella contamination in poultry meat.
Experiential short courses in food safety have been conducted
periodically and have provided hands-on training for food industry
workers and other food science and food safety professionals. In 2009,
this research included scientists from Mexico, France, and India.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2003, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 2003 was $198,700; for fiscal year 2004,
$177,944; for fiscal year 2005, $187,488; for fiscal year 2006,
$198,000; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $74,475; and
for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $69,000 per year. A total of $974,607
has been appropriated.
Currently, all related research has been conducted at the Institute
of Food Science and Engineering in the Texas A&M University Electron
Beam Food Research Facility, College Station, Texas.
The last Agency evaluation of this project was conducted in
December 2009. It was concluded that the investigators are qualified to
carry out the objectives involving applied research on food and
agriculturally related products and that the findings of the research
will result in food safety and public health benefits.
food safety research consortium, new york
The objective of this grant is to conduct and coordinate food
safety research that provides critical new knowledge on foodborne
pathogens and leads to the development of new and innovative food
safety tools and intervention strategies by developing and applying
molecular characterization and epidemiological methods to provide an
improved understanding of the transmission, evolution, and ecology of
selected bacterial foodborne pathogens, including Salmonella and L.
monocytogenes.
Strain collections, subtyping and characterization methods, and
protocols will be made broadly available to facilitate application of
the methodologies developed. Over the last project year, researchers
have made major progress on two specific projects. Previous research
has shown that L. monocytogenes isolates can be grouped into three
genetic lineages, which seem to differ in their ability and likelihood
to cause human disease. Researchers have also tested the hypothesis
that L. monocytogenes lineages may exhibit different stress-related
phenotypes.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2001 with an
appropriation of $284,373; for fiscal year 2002, $800,000; for fiscal
year 2003, $894,150; for fiscal year 2004 $800,250; for fiscal year
2005, $892,800; for fiscal year 2006, $990,000; for fiscal year 2007,
$0, for fiscal year 2008, $737,799, for fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$693,000 per year. A total of $6,785,372 has been appropriated.
This research will be conducted at Cornell University in Ithaca,
New York, in the Departments of Food Science and Computer Science.
An agency evaluation was conducted by NIFA staff in September 2009
upon receipt of the proposal and Current Research Information System
(CRIS) reports. NIFA staff determined the proposal was sound and the
facilities and faculty were adequate to complete the project
successfully.
food security, washington
The objectives of this grant are to enhance the Pacific Northwest
(PNW) spring wheat breeding material; develop and test facultative
wheat varieties that can be planted in the late fall, winter, or early
spring; develop innovative intervention to control microbiological
pathogens associated with food processing; and develop new packaging
and processing methods to prevent microbiological contamination of
processed foods.
The work began in fiscal year 2002 with an appropriation of
$400,000; $447,075 in fiscal year 2003; $399,628 for fiscal year 2004,
$397,792 in fiscal year 2005; $394,020 in fiscal year 2006; $0 in
fiscal year 2007; $293,928 in fiscal year 2008; and $276,000 per year
in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. A total of $2,884,443 has been
appropriated.
Research is being conducted at laboratories at the College of
Agriculture, Human, and Natural Resources, Washington State University.
Proposals for projects are developed by Washington State University
and are reviewed by peers at the College of Agriculture, Human, and
Natural Resources. They are then submitted to NIFA and are reviewed by
National Programs Leaders. NIFA staff also monitors the progress of the
project through semi-annual conference calls and through review of
annual accomplishments. Selection of recipients of small grants awarded
by the project is made by scientists at Washington State University. It
is anticipated that NIFA staff will conduct an evaluation in 2010.
forages for advancing livestock production, kentucky
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $473,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
forestry research, arkansas
The objective of the grant is to develop alternative forest
management strategies for achieving multi-resource objectives; i.e.,
production of timber, wildlife, recreation, and other values of the
forest on private industrial and non-industrial forest lands and public
lands. Progress has been made in several areas such as development of
intensive fiber farming systems as alternatives to soybeans for
Mississippi Delta farmers, and discovery of the nutrient needs of
predators of the beetle so predators can be grown and studied in
artificial cultures.
A major accomplishment in 2008 follows:
The Arkansas Forest Resources Center conducted bio-fuel research to
determine the most efficient alternative bio-fuel and feed-stocks in a
variety of locations around the State of Arkansas. Portable bio-
refinery work proceeds as a component of this research. Results
indicated that large volumes of cellulosic biomass from forest residue
and agronomic biomass crops are compatible with growing sites in
Arkansas and can provide large volumes capable of providing fuel feed
stocks. Forest based feed stocks--residuals and slash--could produce as
much as 900,000,000 gallons of ethanol a year. This is a replacement of
10 percent of the total gasoline consumption in the State.
A major accomplishment in 2009 follows:
Issues surrounding cellulosic-based biomass feedstock production
are complex and require sound science-based information from which to
base management decisions. Scientists implemented studies on cellulosic
biomass production systems to assess biomass yields, determine
investment potentials, and evaluate impacts on selected environmental
services. Successful establishment of different cellulosic biomass
production systems was influenced by local environmental factors
associated with each treatment immediately following planting.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: 1994
$470,000; 1995 $523,000; 1996 $523,000; 1997 $523,000; 1998 $523,000;
1999 $523,000; 2000 $523,000; 2001 $521,849; 2002 $512,000; 2003
$508,672; 2004 $455,298; 2005 $461,280; 2006 $456,390; 2007 $0; 2008
$339,606; 2009 $319,000; 2010 $319,000; Total $7,501,095.
The Arkansas Forest Resources Center is administered through the
School of Forest Resources on the campus of the University of Arkansas
at Monticello. Individual studies are being conducted at the University
of Arkansas, Fayetteville; University of Arkansas at Monticello; and
several locations across the State.
A review was conducted in 2001. The review team found no adverse
conditions on research capability, and that infrastructure is adequate;
projects were progressing as scheduled. A review will be scheduled in
2010.
fresh produce food safety, california
The objectives of this grant are to establish a clearinghouse for
research related to produce safety, and to support studies focused on
developing solutions that mitigate risks associated with the Nation's
produce supply.
Eleven research projects have been awarded, and each will
specifically address reducing the food safety risks associated with
growing and harvesting fresh produce.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $521,325; $704,000 in fiscal year
2009; and $750,000 in fiscal year 2010. A total of $1,975,325 has been
appropriated.
The research is being conducted at the University of California,
Davis.
A summary of completed work was submitted, reviewed, and approved
by National Program staff in November 2009.
genomics for southern crop stress and disease, mississippi
The objective of this grant is to determine how southern crops and
livestock respond to stress from pests and the environment, in order to
provide basic and applied knowledge to breeding programs. The research
will use genomics tools for identification of pathogen and stress
resistance in southern agricultural crops including, but not limited
to, cotton, rice, soybeans, corn, sweet potatoes, forestry, and in
livestock, including poultry.
Researchers have been constructing the genome maps of
agriculturally important plants and animals, using experimental data to
provide more accurate blueprints for identifying key genes involved in
production. This work is continually ongoing as more and more genome
sequence data becomes available. It makes the genome sequences much
easier for researchers worldwide to interpret, use, and turn into
valuable products. Researchers are also continually improving the
encyclopedia of all gene functions for all agriculturally important
species; the encyclopedia is called AgBase and is available at
www.agbase.msstate.edu. AgBase provides information that has a digital
code and is used to reverse-engineer the molecular components of
cellular machines. It is used by researchers worldwide to derive
knowledge, and thus value, from their massive genomics data sets.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2002. The
appropriation for fiscal year 2002 was $640,000; for fiscal year 2003,
$715,320; for fiscal year 2004, $640,200; for fiscal year 2005,
$882,880; for fiscal year 2006, $1,128,600; for fiscal year 2007, $0;
for fiscal year 2008, $849,015; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$797,000 per year. A total of $6,450,015 has been appropriated.
Research is being conducted at Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry
Experiment Station sites. Collaboration will be encouraged with
researchers at Historically Black Colleges and Universities in the
State. Alcorn State University and the Mississippi University for Women
have participated in summer programs through this project. The
researchers also collaborate with the European Bioinformatics
Institute.
The project is managed as a competitive grants program. Each
application is reviewed by an external, nationally recognized panel of
reviewers. Only projects with superior recommendations are funded.
geographic information system
The objectives of the grant are to build institutional frameworks
for developing and disseminating geographic and related information to
local decision-makers and to promote collaborative and innovative
transfer of geographic information system (GIS) technologies to State
and local governments and others in the public and private sectors.
In fiscal year 2009, administration of this project was transferred
to Pennsylvania State University from the University of Wisconsin.
Accomplishments in fiscal year 2008 common to all sites include:
technical assistance in GIS implementation; pilot project
demonstrations; data automation and database development; consultation
and advice for local and tribal government; software evaluation and
development; model development; software and GIS application training;
satellite telecasts; educational video production; public conference
and other professional presentations; technical and lay audience
publications; and provision of information and technical resources
through the RGIS Web site. The RGIS Web site will be maintained by the
Chesapeake Penn State University site www.ruralgis.org.
All sites contribute and participate in the two annual coordinating
committee meetings; regional GIS meetings and conferences; preparation
and distribution of the project bulletins; helping to update and
maintain the project Web site; and coordination and guiding development
of education modules. The project provided several bulletins and
education modules for the Cooperative Extension's eXtension community
of practice called Map@Syst.
A few examples of project impacts by site are detailed below:
Chesapeake--Pennsylvania State University.--Developed a Web
application that allows farmers to create maps necessary to meet
regulatory requirements of the Pennsylvania Nutrient Balance Sheets;
Initiated development of the Pennsylvania One Stop, an online
application that provides farmers with the ability to develop their own
conservation and nutrient management plans; Designed a method to assess
drought vulnerability for Pennsylvania applicable at the field scale
using local soils, climatic conditions, and crop management factors;
Evaluated LiDAR data for use in riparian buffer assessment for streams
by improving channel morphology data, characterization of buffer
vegetative conditions, and to quantify stream shading conditions; and
Expanded an educational program called FARMSAFE where FFA students and
their teachers develop Farm Emergency Response Maps for farmers. They
learn about farm safety and geospatial technologies. Currently 26
school districts are participating and using curriculum developed by
this center.
South--South Georgia Regional Development Center.--Developed models
and maps of lands in south Georgia suitable for both development and
agriculture uses, including land use for bio-energy, land areas in
which there is suitability for both uses, and land in proximity to
residential and commercial enterprises where it is prone to loss as a
prime source of food and energy crops; Developed a first-of-its-kind
geospatial database template to assist the Georgia Department of
Community Affairs with gathering complete, topologically sound land use
reporting from 16 regional development centers across the State; and
Refined and disseminated the Well and Septic Tank Referencing and
Online Map (WelSTROM) resource for the mapping and data collection of
private wells and septic systems as the installations occur.
Tribal Technical Center (TTC)--Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
Institute.--The Tribal Technical Center has not yet provided a report
for 2008 RGIS activities. Key personnel left the project at the
beginning of the project and considerable time elapsed before they were
replaced. It is only in recent months that RGIS-TTC has begun to make
substantive progress toward project goals. In order to allow RGIS-TTC
sufficient time to meet 2008 goals, TTC requested and received a 1-year
no-cost extension to the overall RGIS grant. During the spring 2010
business meeting, members of the consortium will evaluate TTC progress
and provide a recommendation to the 2008 grant administrative unit--
University of Wisconsin--Madison. It is hoped that TTC will have
sufficient progress at this time to justify disbursement of the entire
funds allocated for their purposes. If, however, it appears at that
time that RGIS-TTC will not be able to expend the funds toward project
goals, RGIS Administration will submit a request to USDA to reallocate
funds.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
year 1990, $494,000; fiscal year 1991, $747,000; fiscal years 1992 and
1993, $1,000,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $1,011,000; fiscal year
1995, $877,000; fiscal year 1996, $939,000; fiscal years 1997 through
1999, $844,000 per year; fiscal year 2000, $850,000; fiscal year 2001,
$1,022,745; fiscal year 2002, $1,199,000; fiscal year 2003, $1,390,900;
fiscal year 2004, $1,431,504; fiscal year 2005, $1,702,272; fiscal year
2006 $1,783,980; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $1,328,634;
and fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $1,248,000 per year. A total of
$21,805,035 has been appropriated. This project was funded under
research Federal Administration through fiscal year 2004. In fiscal
year 2005, these funds were awarded as a Special Research Grant.
The National Consortium for Rural Geospatial Innovations in America
is administratively centered at Pennsylvania State University at
University Park and functions as one of the Chesapeake Centers.
The South Georgia Center in Valdosta, Georgia, works in affiliation
with the South Georgia Regional Development Center.
The Mid-South Center, in Fayetteville, Arkansas, works in
affiliation with the University of Arkansas.
The Pacific Northwest Center works in affiliation Central
Washington University and the Yakima Nations.
The Great Plains center in Grand Forks, North Dakota, works in
affiliation with the University of North Dakota.
Native American communities are being reached through the
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute Tribal Technical Center in
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Beginning in 1995, the program was externally reviewed by local
advisory committees and qualified professionals inside and outside of
government with comments and suggestions sent to the agency to assist
with the merit reviews. A 2-day review of the program was conducted in
November 2002 by the NIFA personnel in conjunction with a satellite
training broadcast of Geographic Information Systems technologies to
tribal colleges. In December 2003, an independent group of peers did a
comprehensive review of project activities over the last 5 years. The
program was found to be making progress towards objectives and
producing useful documents for their clientele. In fiscal year 2006,
the project conducted a stakeholder survey to assess the achievement
and impacts of RGIS directly.
global change and uv monitoring, colorado
The objective of this grant is the establishment of a
climatological network to monitor ultraviolet radiation at the surface
of the earth.
Instruments have been deployed and are currently in operation at 36
monitoring sites across the 50 United States and Canada. Data are
available within 24 hours of measurement, via the Web, and are used by
many Federal agencies and university researchers. In 2009, the
project's Web site increased its capability to provide users with
graphical displays for some data. Some project funds are expended each
year to partially support studies by researchers across the country to
address plant, animal, and ecological impacts from ultraviolet
exposure. This, of course, represents a small fraction of all the
scientific studies being conducted with these data by the broader
scientific community. The lead scientist is developing an integrated
impact assessment model that couples climate, radiation, crop models,
and local weather conditions to predict and understand climate-crop
interactions. Recent model results demonstrate geospatially dispersed
effects of combined ultraviolet radiation and temperature increases on
the productivity of cotton cropland across the United States. Model
results for corn crops will be available by the middle of 2010.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1992, and the
appropriation for fiscal years 1992-1993 was $2,000,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $1,175,000; fiscal year 1995, $1,625,000; fiscal year
1996, $1,615,000; fiscal year 1997, $1,657,000; fiscal years 1998-2000,
$1,000,000 per year; fiscal year 2001, $1,430,845; fiscal year 2002,
$1,402,000; fiscal year 2003, $2,235,375; fiscal year 2004, $2,000,129;
fiscal year 2005, $1,984,000; fiscal year 2006, $2,162,160; fiscal year
2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $1,610,646; and fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$1,408,000 per year. A total of $28,713,155 has been appropriated.
Colorado State University manages the operating network, which
includes fully instrumented sites across the continental United States,
and in Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and New Zealand. Ultraviolet
radiation effects work is conducted at collaborator laboratories across
the United States. Isolated experiments on ultraviolet effects are
conducted at various university and government laboratories across the
country.
The agency has assigned two technical staff to continuously monitor
activities in the global change research program. Agency staff
scientists are in contact with the principal researchers on a monthly
basis. A review of the Ultraviolet Radiation Monitoring Program by a
panel of technical experts from outside the Department was completed in
April 2001, and their report is available. Agency staff met with
program staff in January 2002 to discuss implementation of review panel
recommendations. In 2004, the project's principal researchers developed
a 5-year strategic plan for monitoring and research, which has been
reviewed and approved by agency technical staff; this plan is updated
annually to keep it current. Each year, the project's principal
researchers meet with the agency administrator and other staff to
evaluate project objectives, approaches, and impacts. In 2008, funds
were awarded to the institution competitively though a request for
applications and a peer-review process.
grain sorghum, kansas and texas
The objective of the grant is to identify and use germplasm to
develop grain sorghum cultivars that both mature earlier and produce
more grain.
In 2009, research in this project has improved understanding of the
mechanisms of drought tolerance in sorghum. Field research with
genetically diverse sorghum lines under different conditions revealed
that leaf temperature and slow wilting are the best measurable
indicators of superior end-of-season yields under drought stress. These
traits are known to be related to plant water use efficiency.
Researchers are using the technique of association mapping with these
same lines, to identify the genes that help sorghum use water
efficiently. Breeders will then be able to use these genes in marker-
assisted breeding to develop sorghum lines that are even more drought
tolerant.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997, and the
appropriation for fiscal years 1997-2000 was $106,000 per year; for
fiscal year 2001, $105,767; for fiscal year 2002, $104,000; for fiscal
year 2003, $139,040; for fiscal year 2004, $124,262; for fiscal year
2005, $135,904; for fiscal year 2006, $728,640; for fiscal year 2007,
$0; for fiscal year 2008, $548,136; for fiscal year 2009, $515,000; and
for fiscal year 2010, $1,000,000. A total of $3,824,749 has been
appropriated.
The research is conducted at Kansas State University, Texas Tech
University, and Texas A&M University.
The project is subjected to peer review by the recipient
institution, as well as review by senior agency technical staff. In
addition, stakeholder input was obtained through formal and informal
methods. The project was reviewed as part of the agency review of the
Kansas State University Agronomy Department.
grass seed cropping for sustainable agriculture, idaho, oregon, and
washington
The objectives of this grant are to: develop sustainable grass seed
cropping systems that optimize economic seed production with maximum
energy and resource conservation and maintain or improve environmental
quality; develop economic utilization of grass seed production by-
products in agriculture; and develop maximum genetic and biological
potential of seed.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994 with an
appropriation of $470,000; fiscal years 1995-2000, $423,000 per year;
fiscal year 2001, $422,069; fiscal year 2002, $414,000; fiscal year
2003, $454,030; fiscal year 2004, $406,587; fiscal year 2005, $450,368;
fiscal year 2006, $445,500; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008,
$332,655; and fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $313,000 per year. A total of
$6,559,209 has been appropriated.
The research is conducted at State agricultural experiment stations
in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
Additional work is expected to address some of the most difficult
issues, such as breeding new cultivars to address changing needs and
developing markets for the unburned crop residue. That work is now
underway.
This program is subject to an annual comprehensive evaluation by a
team of peer scientists, industry representatives, and farmers. The
results are used to guide research for the next year. Each proposal
undergoes merit review at the performing institution and is reviewed by
senior agency technical staff. The program was subjected to a
comprehensive review in December of 2000, which focused on the program
objectives and priorities. A site visit and review of progress was
conducted in 2003.
high performance computing, utah
The objective of this grant is to extend the use and applications
of high performance computing to the agricultural research community by
producing a virtual, scalable infrastructure for agricultural
researchers, and developing a new parallel approach to population
genetics and phylogeography on this infrastructure.
During 2006, Utah State University organized and sponsored a
national symposium on high performance computing for the agricultural
research community with a technical and educational program; a similar
meeting was held in 2009. Researcher-focused seminars and workshops
were held in 2008 and 2009 to help faculty and graduate students
develop knowledge and skills related to high-performance computing and
to help them initiate projects. Investigators have completed testing of
a regional climate model for snowpack, and the simulation and analysis
of climate impacts on agricultural water use have been completed.
The work supported by this grant began in 2006 under the Advanced
Computing Research and Education grant with an appropriation of
$539,550; and in fiscal year 2007, $0. In fiscal year 2008, the project
was renamed High Performance Computing with an appropriation of
$521,333; in fiscal year 2009, $525,000; and in fiscal year 2010,
$263,000. A total of $1,848,883 has been appropriated for this program.
The program is carried out at Utah State University.
The project is subject to a thorough institutional peer review
during preparation of the grant proposal. Submitted proposals undergo
merit review by one or more agency scientists. The principal researcher
meets annually with agency staff wherein project objectives, plans, and
accomplishments are discussed. An agency scientist made an on-site
visit to the project in 2009.
human nutrition, louisiana
The objective of this grant is to understand differences in fat
storage and how this information can be applied to terminating the
current fattening of America.
Previous work evaluated the effects of high and low protein diets
in normal and overweight men and women at both low and high levels of
physical activity and energy intake using gene expression and muscle
metabolism, in vitro to explore the metabolism, and genetic basis of
the responses to intakes of these diets. Weight gain with the low
protein diet was significantly less than with higher protein diets, but
the fat storage was identical between the groups. These results are
noteworthy in that from a nutritional point of view it means that
interpreting weight changes in people with different protein intakes is
not simple and suggests that additional measures may be needed to
adequately interpret such data. Currently, this research has two
projects underway. The first, the study of variability of food intake
in dietitians is based on a demonstration of corrective signals for
feeding that operate over 3- to 4-day intervals in relatively sedentary
women. The second, the study of the interaction of dietary fat and
carbohydrates examines whether a high fat diet enhances liver fat and
decreases insulin sensitivity over 3- to 4-day intervals and if this
effect is exaggerated by the type of monosaccharide, such as fructose
or glucose, in the diet.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991, and the
appropriation for fiscal years 1991-1993 was $800,000 per year; for
fiscal years 1994-2000, $752,000 per year; for fiscal year 2001,
$750,346; for fiscal year 2002, $800,000; for fiscal year 2003,
$794,800; for fiscal year 2004; $711,776; for fiscal year 2005,
$706,304; for fiscal year 2006, $698,940; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for
fiscal year 2008, $526,290; and for fiscal year 2009, $494,000; and for
fiscal year 2010, $526,000. A total of $13,672,456 has been
appropriated.
Research is conducted at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center,
a unit of the Louisiana State University.
A scientific and independent peer-review was conducted by a panel
of three reviewers from the Pennington Biomedical Research Center,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and two external reviewers according to the
USDA guidelines on May 20, 2009. In addition, progress is evaluated
through the review of annual reports by NIFA National Program Leaders.
human nutrition, new york
The objective of the grant is to support new multi-investigator
collaborative research projects that integrate approaches in genomics,
nutritional biochemistry, and human metabolism to address fundamental
questions in human nutrition and health. Research focuses on the use of
stable isotope approaches to understand human nutrient dynamics at the
whole body and cellular level in healthy humans.
Work on the current human nutrition research projects that focus on
the key nutrients calcium, iron and choline began in fiscal year 2009.
Studies to measure calcium, vitamin D, related hormones and bone
turnover markers in pregnant teens to determine how these factors are
associated with fetal bone growth and maternal bone loss across
pregnancy are nearing completion. Researchers have found that vitamin D
insufficiency is prevalent in minority adolescents and their newborns
at delivery and that suboptimal vitamin D status is associated with a
significantly lower birth weight in the newborn infant. Maternal
vitamin D insufficiency was also found to have a significant negative
impact on fetal bone growth. These results are being written for
publication. Human nutrition studies of choline requirements during
pregnancy are completing data collection. Analysis of the data is
underway.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
year 1989, $450,000; fiscal years 1990-1991, $556,000 per year; fiscal
years 1992-1993, $735,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $691,000; fiscal
years 1995 through 2000, $622,000 per year; fiscal year 2001, $620,632;
fiscal year 2002, $609,000; fiscal year 2003, $571,163; fiscal year
2004, $546,755; fiscal year 2005, $580,320; fiscal year 2006, $574,200;
fiscal year 2007, $0; and fiscal year 2008, $402,165; and fiscal years
2009 and 2010, $377,000 per year. A total of $12,113,235 has been
appropriated.
Research is being conducted at Cornell University, New York.
The proposal that was received for fiscal year 2009 was subjected
to independent peer review as required by the Cornell University
Agricultural Experiment Station. The process followed guidelines issued
by that office and entailed complete review of the proposal by two
Cornell faculty members external to the Division of Nutritional
Sciences. The proposal that is being prepared for fiscal year 2010 is a
continuation that is subject to an internal review by NIFA staff.
hydroponic production, ohio
The objective of the grant is to expand hydroponic production
technology with new growers and new crops using energy efficient
greenhouses and Internet decision support tools and have year-round
availability of locally grown, high-quality vegetable and floriculture
crops for all consumers.
Significant progress has been made in the areas of economic
analyses to enable producers to make fiscally sound decisions on choice
and operation of production facilities, cropping patterns, and
marketing decisions. This information has been provided to the user
community in easily accessible formats, including demonstration
greenhouses at Toledo, printed information, Web-based information, and
conferences. There is continuous, ongoing testing and demonstration of
improved technology including determination of the economic feasibility
of using the new technology systems. A Web-based grower information
system with interactive decision model for growing hydroponic tomatoes,
which is available at www.oardc.ohiostate.edu/hydroponics/drake/
index.php, was developed and is continuously updated and modified.
Demonstration and outreach activities are assisting growers in
expanding markets and marketing organizations for hydroponic-grown
crops; refining Internet decision support tools; designing and
demonstrating new, economical, energy efficient production systems;
investigating the feasibility of new crops for hydroponic production
methods; and conducting research on and demonstrating safe, effective
integrated pest management practices for hydroponic production systems.
Vegetable growers in Ohio and abroad were provided with technical,
cultural, and marketing support through one-on-one consultations and
site visits, telephone and e-mail communications, a monthly greenhouse
newsletter, a Web site, as well as through support for the grower-led
organization, the Great Lakes Hydroponic Association.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998, and the
following amounts have been appropriated: in fiscal year 1998,
$140,000; in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $200,000 per year; in fiscal
year 2001, $99,780; in fiscal year 2002, $100,000; in fiscal year 2003,
$99,350; in fiscal year 2004, $178,938; in fiscal year 2005, $178,560;
in fiscal year 2006, $177,210; in fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year
2008, $132,069; and in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $124,000 per year. A
total of $1,753,907 has been appropriated.
The research is being conducted by the Food, Agricultural, and
Biological Engineering, the Ohio State University Agricultural Research
Center, Wooster, Ohio; the Ohio State University Extension Commercial
Business Enhancement Center, Bowling Green, Ohio; and at the Toledo
Botanical Garden, Toledo, Ohio.
Each year, the performing institution conducts an internal peer
review of the proposal. In addition, the agency conducts a merit review
of each new proposal. To date, satisfactory progress towards
accomplishing project goals and objectives has been made.
improved dairy management practices, pennsylvania
The objective of this grant is to research new technologies and
management practices that will help Pennsylvania dairy operations
become more profitable and sustainable.
Feed represents the largest and most variable cost for dairy
producers. Therefore, the productivity and profitability of every
commercial dairy farm depends on the efficient use of feed, with the
goal of achieving the highest output of milk with the minimum input of
feed. New feeding strategies are needed to improve feed efficiency in
dairy cattle. To this end, the research in this project seeks a better
understanding of the natural biological rhythms in dairy cattle. This
information will enable researchers to test different feeding regimens
and find ways to produce more milk with less feed. In addition to
improved productivity and profitability, enhanced feed efficiency has
the potential to decrease the production of greenhouse gases by dairy
cattle and thus lessen their local, regional and global contributions
to climate change.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1992, and the
appropriation for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 was $335,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $329,000; fiscal years 1995-2000, $296,000 per year;
fiscal year 2001, $397,124; fiscal year 2002, $389,000; fiscal year
2003, $397,400; fiscal year 2004, $354,894; fiscal year 2005, $352,160;
fiscal year 2006, $348,480; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008,
$259,173; and fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $243,000 per year. A total of
$5,759,231 has been appropriated.
This research is being carried out at the Pennsylvania State
University.
The submitted proposal for this new project was critically reviewed
by the National Program Leader of NIFA in the summer of 2009.
improved fruit practices, michigan
The objective of this grant is to reduce the chemical contamination
of the environment during protection from pests in fruit production and
improve production practices for beans and beets through multi
disciplinary research, including genetic resistance, pesticides, and
the development of new nonchemical production methods.
Field studies are being conducted to determine optimum nitrogen
application rates for sugar beet. This project has played a crucial
role in the development, registration, and expanded use of mating
disruption products for Michigan apples and peaches. The use of this
technique has greatly improved the control of codling moth, a key pest
of apples. The technique involves spraying a chemical that interferes
with moth mating. The spray does not leave toxic residue on the fruit
and does not harm beneficial organisms. Use of the technique has
reduced fruit injury and provided increased revenues of $20 to $100 per
acre. To reduce costs of application and effectiveness of the technique
to control key fruit pests, pheromone delivery and application
technologies are being developed. Reducing the reliance on broad
spectrum pesticides in the production of fruit has been a focal point
of this project. By incorporating reduced risk control options into
their integrated pest management programs, Michigan apple producers
have been able to reduce insecticide and miticide use by an average of
28 percent. This includes a 20 percent and 37 percent reduction in the
use of organophosphate and carbamate compounds, respectively. Insect
trapping technologies are now finding application to protect Michigan's
cherry crop. Traps provide an alternative to insecticide use. Using
traps on the crop has saved the industry as much as $700,000 per
growing season.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994. The
appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $494,000; for fiscal years 1995
2000, $445,000 per year; for fiscal year 2001, $444,021; for fiscal
year 2002, $239,000; for fiscal year 2003, $237,447; for fiscal year
2004, $211,743; for fiscal year 2005, $210,304; for fiscal year 2006,
$209,880; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $156,894; and
for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $147,000 per year. A total of
$5,167,289 has been appropriated.
Research is conducted by Michigan State University at several of
its field stations and in grower orchards and fields.
This project has been subjected to a comprehensive review each
year. The annual proposals are peer reviewed at the performing
institution before submission to the agency, and the proposal is then
reviewed by senior agency technical staff.
increasing shelf life of agricultural commodities, idaho
The objective of this grant is to develop a bio-electronic detector
platform for the detection of staphylococcal microorganisms and
enterotoxins, which can be applied in food processing and distribution
systems and that can serve as a model for the development of a sensor
with broader applications to other pathogens and food contaminants.
A micro-electronic test chip has been specifically designed and
manufactured for this purpose; transistor parameters have been defined.
The electronic test structure fabricated allows surface chemistry data
to be acquired along with deoxyribonucleic acid binding data. Initial
experiments captured both live and formalin killed staphylococcus
aureus from pure cultures. Data obtained using the test chip provide
information for the design of an intelligent electronic micro-device.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Ultra Low Power
technology was used to create maximum sensitivity. The transistor
circuits were completed. The fabrication run was completed, and
processes for chip cleaning and surface modifications and encapsulation
were developed. Three electronic sensor platforms have been evaluated
in food systems. A hand-held, sensitive, enzyme-linked immunomagnetic
electrochemistry biosensor has been developed and tested for detection
of microorganisms and toxins in food and water. Silica nanospring mat
electronic biosensors were fabricated and found useful in sequence
specific detection of deoxyribonucleic acid. The third platform is
nanowire-based field effect transistor devices for label free and
ultra-sensitive electronic biodetection. Conjugated gold nanoparticle
technology has been explored to knock down genes for improving shelf-
life of meat through pre-harvest regulation or post-harvest fatty acid
oxidation.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2002. The
appropriation for fiscal year 2002 was $640,000; $789,833 in fiscal
year 2003; $706,805 in fiscal year 2004; $822,368 in fiscal year 2005;
$854,370 in fiscal year 2006; $0 in fiscal year 2007; $642,471 in
fiscal year 2008; and $603,000 per year in fiscal years 2009 and 2010.
A total of $5,661,847 has been appropriated.
The primary research is conducted at the University of Idaho
Research Park in Post Falls and in the Department of Microbiology,
Molecular Biology, and Biochemistry, and Department of Chemical and
Materials Engineering on the Moscow campus of the University of Idaho.
Limited supplementary works, including microchip fabrication and some
tests, are conducted at the chosen collaborators' locations.
An agency scientist conducts a merit review of the proposal
submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis. A review
of the proposal for fiscal year 2009 was conducted on June 25, 2009.
The research team is a multi-disciplinary group consisting of molecular
biologists, electronic designers, organic chemists, solid state
physicists, microbiologists, material engineers, and food scientists.
The feasibility of a successful completion of the proposed tasks is
good.
infectious disease research, colorado
The objective of this grant is to initiate, conduct, and promote
research activities that have impacts on trade issues; use a
multidisciplinary, integrated approach to monitor for diseases;
prioritize critical research needs through stakeholder advisory groups;
and provide outreach and graduate student training.
The investigators have contributed to the diagnosis and preventive
policy for several economically important diseases such as Vesicular
Stomatitis, Bovine Tuberculosis, Johne's Disease, Brucellosis, Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy, Foot and Mouth Disease, and Bovine Viral
Diarrhea. Research results have been made available directly to the
stakeholders for immediate implementation through an advisory group, as
well as a Web site. Antimicrobial drug use and antimicrobial resistance
research has been conducted to investigate appropriate methods to
evaluate antimicrobial resistance through time. Furthermore, industry,
international, veterinary, and traditional students from diverse
disciplines have received advanced short-term or long-term training in
animal diseases, health and food safety.
The work has been underway since 1999 with an initial appropriation
of $250,000. Since that time appropriations have been made as follows:
$255,000 for fiscal year 2000; $299,340 for fiscal year 2001; $640,000
for fiscal year 2002; $745,125 for fiscal year 2003; $667,041 for
fiscal year 2004; $777,728 for fiscal year 2005; $808,830 for fiscal
year 2006; $0 for fiscal year 2007; $608,709 for fiscal year 2008;
$572,000 for fiscal year 2009; and $650,000 in fiscal year 2010. A
total of $6,273,773 has been appropriated.
The work is being conducted on the campus of Colorado State
University located at Fort Collins by the College of Veterinary
Medicine and Biomedical Sciences.
The NIFA National Program Leader from the agency hosted a meeting
with the Project Director in Washington, DC in March 2007 and has met
with him at various professional meetings on a regular basis since
then. In addition, the project advisory committee conducted a program
review in February-March 2005. The progress and accomplishments were
found to be consistent with the goals of the project. The fiscal year
2010 proposal was institutionally reviewed by Colorado State
University, as well as by a NIFA National Program Leader.
initiative to improve blueberry production and efficiency, georgia
The objective of this grant is to develop a variety of blueberry
cultivars with high fruit quality with regards to flavor, storage, and
shipping.
In the first year of the project, field trials were established on
University of Georgia research farms and at grower test sites. The
trials consisted of standard cultivars and advanced selections from the
University of Georgia blueberry breeding program. The field trials
included both rabitteye and southern highbush selections. Various fruit
and plant attributes were evaluated.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $223,425; and $209,000 per year for
fiscal years 2009 and 2010. A total of $641,425 has been appropriated.
A merit review of the application was conducted in 2010.
inland marine aquaculture, virginia
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $400,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
institute for food science and engineering, arkansas
The objective of the grant is to provide a mechanism for the
University of Arkansas to utilize its multidisciplinary research
expertise to offer an integrated approach to developing and
disseminating scientific information associated with production, value-
added processing, safety, nutritional value, packaging, storage, and
distribution of food products.
The Institute for Food Science and Engineering seeks to strengthen
existing partnerships and develop new partnerships and alliances with
the State, regional, national food industry, government, and academic
institutions, while providing an appropriate balance of fundamental and
applied research in program areas that are critical to the food
processing industries in Arkansas, the region, and the Nation. New
production, processing, and packaging technologies are developed and
promoted to enhance product quality and ensure safety throughout the
food chain from production to consumption. Technology transfer efforts
assist the food industry in developing value-added, high-quality
products that are safe, appealing, and healthy. Appropriate technology
transfer methods are used to communicate research findings, developing
a nationally and internationally recognized industry outreach program.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1996. The
appropriation for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 was $750,000 each year;
$950,000 for fiscal year 1998; $1,250,000 each year for fiscal years
1999-2000; $1,247,250 for fiscal year 2001; $1,222,000 in fiscal year
2002; $1,214,057 for fiscal year 2003; $1,086,551 for fiscal year 2004;
$1,110,048 for fiscal year 2005; $1,107,810 for fiscal year 2006; $0
for fiscal year 2007; $825,183 for fiscal year 2008; and $775,000 per
year for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The total appropriation was
$14,312,899.
This project was evaluated in September 2009 by NIFA staff and the
reviews indicated that the faculty and facilities were adequate, and
the proposal was sound.
integrated economic and technical analysis of sustainable biomass
energy systems, indiana
The objective of this grant is to conduct economic and
environmental analyses to assist Indiana and the Midwest in producing
and using renewable energy and how biomass production and conversion
affects the economy, environment and ecosystems of the region.
The original goal of this research is to conduct economics and
environmental analyses. The economic analysis is using three different
economic modeling tools that capture the uncertainty in oil price and
other economic variables and simulation of the impacts of different
biofuels policy options and oil prices on ethanol production. The
policies being considered are the fixed biofuel subsidy, a variable
subsidy that fluctuates with the price of oil, the Renewable Fuel
Standard, and greenhouse gas policies. This project is also examining a
model used to simulate global impacts of domestic and European Union
biofuels programs. Technology options include cellulose conversion via
biochemical processes and via thermochemical processes. The economic
analyses are under development by building spreadsheet models for each
of the major technology paths and policy options. The environmental
analysis will include data collection and analysis of field trials
using big bluestem, miscanthus, switchgrass, sorghum, and corn grown in
rotation with soybean and continuous corn. All experimental treatments
have been established at the primary experimental site including
transplanting Miscanthus rhizomes and removal of residues from corn and
sorghum residue removal treatments. All monitoring equipment has been
installed and calibrated to study grain and total above ground dry
matter yields as a function of nitrogen fertilizer rate and dissolved
organic carbon content in drainage water and weekly assessment of
greenhouse gas emissions. Compositional analysis of all plant issues
has been initiated.
Fiscal year 2009 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant. An amount of $188,000 per year was appropriated in
fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The total appropriation is $376,000.
The work is being carried out at Purdue University and at the
Purdue University Water Quality Field Station.
Fiscal year 2009 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant. An agency evaluation will be conducted when the
proposal for fiscal year 2010 is submitted.
integrated pest management
The objective of this grant is to develop new approaches for
managing critical pest problems in agricultural production systems and
urban environments. Integrated pest management systems are developed to
enhance or maintain profitability, protect human health and the
environment, manage invasive pest species, and serve as a replacement
for management tools lost as a result of regulatory action, pest
resistance, and other factors.
The investment of research grant funds in these projects has
resulted in the development of many new pest management tools and a
reduction in the economic, health, and environmental risks associated
with agricultural production. Recent examples of contributions made by
this research program include the development of new management
approaches for peach brown rot, rice stink bug, and grape berry moth.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1981, and the
following amounts have been appropriated: in fiscal year 1981,
$1,500,000; in fiscal years 1982-1985, $3,091,000 per year; in fiscal
years 1986-1989, $2,940,000 per year; in fiscal year 1990, $2,903,000;
in fiscal year 1991, $4,000,000; in fiscal years 1992 and 1993,
$4,457,000 per year; in fiscal year 1994, $3,034,000; in fiscal years
1995-2000, $2,731,000 per year; in fiscal year 2001, $2,724,992; in
fiscal year 2002, $2,725,000; in fiscal year 2003, $2,707,288; in
fiscal year 2004, $2,438,527; in fiscal year 2005, $2,419,488; in
fiscal years 2006 and 2007, $2,395,800 per year; in fiscal year 2008,
$2,379,228; in fiscal year 2009, $2,379,000; and in fiscal year 2010,
$2,415,000. A total of $85,841,123 has been appropriated since fiscal
year 1981.
Researchers from all land-grant universities are eligible to
compete for this funding. In fiscal year 2009, the following 15
institutions received funding from this competitive grants program:
Clemson University, Cornell University, Idaho State University,
Louisiana State University, Michigan State University, Montana State
University, North Carolina State University, Ohio State University,
Oregon State University, Purdue University, the University of Florida,
the University of Georgia, the University of Massachusetts, the
University of Maine, and Washington State University.
The agency has established a comprehensive annual process to
identify meritorious projects through a competitive process that
evaluates relevance to stakeholder needs and technical merit. All
proposals undergo technical and merit review at the institutional and
regional levels. All proposals are reviewed by a panel of experts to
identify those that are both highly relevant and technically sound.
Senior agency technical staff evaluates proposals and make
recommendations based on the evaluation of the peer review panel. The
agency's technical staff also reviews annual and final reports to
evaluate accomplishments and to determine whether project objectives
are being achieved. The program was reviewed by an external panel in
February 2006 as part of a broader stakeholder review of the agency's
Regional Integrated Pest Management Centers program.
integrated production systems, oklahoma
The objectives of this grant are to develop organic production
techniques for crops in Oklahoma, and to characterize changes in market
prices at regional terminal markets and develop potential market
opportunities.
Recent work includes a project to determine activity and
effectiveness of organic pesticides for managing harlequin bugs on
brassica crops. Three studies were conducted on the use of cucurbit
crop planting systems following a rye cover crop for their impact on
weed control. Another study was conducted on corn gluten meal for weed
control in southern peas. Cultivar trials were conducted with 18
cultivars of tomatoes grown under certified National Organic Program
protocols. Twelve cultivars of cantaloupe were also grown in a soil
fertility study comparing conventional synthetic fertilizers with
organic poultry litter fertilizers. In another study, the effectiveness
of conventional versus organic vegetable production systems was
examined. Results of these studies have been published in journals and
Oklahoma State University variety trial publications and presented at
field days.
Work supported by this grant started in fiscal year 1984, and the
appropriations were: fiscal year 1984, $200,000; fiscal year 1985,
$250,000; fiscal year 1986, $238,000; fiscal years 1987-1989, $188,000
per year; fiscal years 1990-1991, $186,000 per year; fiscal year 1992,
$193,000; fiscal year 1993, $190,000; fiscal year 1994, $179,000;
fiscal years 1995-1998, $161,000 per year; fiscal years 1999-2000,
$180,000 per year; fiscal year 2001, $179,604; fiscal year 2002,
$176,000; fiscal year 2003, $231,486; fiscal year 2004, $206,773;
fiscal year 2005, $205,344; fiscal year 2006, $252,450; fiscal year
2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $187,677; and fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$177,000 per year. A total of $4,983,334 has been appropriated.
This research is being conducted at the Wes Watkins Agricultural
Research and Education Center at Lane, Oklahoma. This facility is
operated by the Oklahoma State Agricultural Experiment Station.
Each of the annual project proposals was subjected to peer review
by the performing institution and was evaluated by senior agency
technical staff.
international arid lands consortium, arizona
The objective of this grant is to develop an ecological approach to
multiple-use management and sustainable use of arid and semi-arid
lands.
The Consortium has conducted research and development, educational
and training initiatives, demonstration projects, workshops and other
technology transfer activities applied to the development, management,
restoration, and reclamation of arid and semi-arid land in North
America, the Middle East, and elsewhere in the world. All activities
are supported by member institutions through their ongoing applied
research and demonstration projects. The IALC was authorized by
Congress in 1990. During the past 20 years, the IALC has funded 91
research projects, 30 demonstration projects, 11 special initiatives;
administered a successful 7-year IALC-USAID (U.S. Agency for
International Development) cooperative agreement in Central Asia and
the Middle East; and sponsored 20 undergrad and grad students through
the IALC Peace Fellowship program. Selected project topics over the
past 20 years include: conservation; water quality; irrigation; GIS
(Geographic Information System) and remote sensing; ecology;
agriculture; wildlife management; rangeland management; wastewater; and
biodiversity. IALC outputs from projects include: journal articles;
books; doctoral dissertations; presentations; Web sites; and many
others. Most IALC projects have taken place in the Southwestern United
States and in the Middle East. Four highlights from the fiscal year
2008-2009 projects funded by NIFA include: (1) Fire in Chihuahuan
Desert Grasslands: Effects on Soil Biota and Nutrient Cycling; (2) Pine
Expansion in Arid Land: Fire Effects on Safe Site Abundance; (3) Post-
Fire Vegetation Recovery: Impacts of Restoration and Environment; and
(4) Runoff, Flood, and Non-sewage Wastewater for Native Tree
Propagation: Anaerobic Sewage Treatment for Sustainable Water
Reclamation in Jordan.
The International Arid Lands Consortium was incorporated in 1991.
Funds were appropriated to the Forest Service in 1993. Additional funds
were received during each of the years that followed. For fiscal years
1994-1998, $329,000 per year; for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $400,000
per year; for fiscal year 2001, $493,911; for fiscal year 2002,
$484,000; for fiscal year 2003, $513,640; for fiscal year 2004,
$581,549; for fiscal year 2005, $579,328; for fiscal year 2006,
$573,210; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $426,990; and
for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $401,000 per year. Total appropriations
are $6,899,628.
Research is currently being conducted at the University of Arizona;
South Dakota State University; Texas Agricultural and Mechanical
University, Kingsville; New Mexico State University; University of
Illinois; Nevada's Desert Research Institute; and several research and
higher education institutions in Israel, Jordan, and Egypt.
The National Program Leader for Rangeland and Grassland Ecosystems
communicates regularly with the project director and attended the Board
of Directors meeting held in spring 2009. The research conducted under
this grant is progressing satisfactorily and is in accordance with the
mission of the agency.
invasive plant management, montana
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $270,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
ir-4 minor crop pest management
The objectives of the grant are to obtain and maintain regulatory
clearances of effective crop protection agents for high value,
specialty food crops and for minor uses on major crops with special
emphasis on lower risk chemicals and uses that are compatible with
integrated pest management programs; to support research to enhance the
development and registration of bio-pesticides for use in food and non-
food pest management programs; and to support research on crop
protection products that will expand their uses on ornamental crops to
allow management of new and important pest species.
Since the program began, data generated by IR-4 has contributed to
the approval of over 8,400 food-use and over 10,800 ornamental pest
management product clearances and registrations. The IR-4 program
supported clearances accounting for approximately 50 percent of all
pest management registration packets approved by the EPA between 2001
and 2004. From 1999 through 2004, IR-4 data packages contributed to the
registration of 3,780 food-crop products and 3,520 ornamental products,
which are 46 percent and 32 percent, respectively, of all IR-4
supported registrations. During calendar year 2008, the EPA reviewed a
record 41 chemistries for IR-4 Food Use Program tolerance petitions.
The agency also eliminated the remaining backlog of IR-4 petitions
making 2008 one of the most productive years for IR-4. Permanent
pesticide tolerances on these were established on 241 chemicals that
could result in 999 new specialty crop use registrations, many of which
are considered reduced risk. IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program data
supported seven new registrations and one registration amendment as
well as four registrations in California. These IR-4 supported
successes impacted 3,095 ornamental plant species. The Biopesticide
Program funded 29 research projects to provide data to support
expansion on a number of biopesticide registrations. IR-4's efforts
supported 18 new or modified products which could provide 128 new
biopesticide uses. IR-4 continued the crop group update by submitting a
proposal to EPA to expand the tree nut crop group. In 2008, the IR-4
food crop program consisted of 573 field trials associated with 92
studies. The IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture program established 1,323
trials with greenhouse and field ornamental crops in support of company
registrations decisions. All food use studies are conducted in
compliance with Federal Good Laboratory Practice Standards. The IR-4
Quality Assurance Unit conducted 157 field and 73 analytical in-life
inspections; and audited 651 field data books, 84 analytical summary
reports, and 97 final or amended reports. In 2008, the Food Use Program
submitted 151 data packages, involving 36 chemicals, and the Ornamental
Horticulture Program submitted 12 data packages to registrants.
Grants have been awarded from appropriated funds as follows:
Program redirection in fiscal year 1975, $250,000; fiscal years 1976-
1980, $1,000,000 per year; fiscal year 1981, $1,250,000; fiscal years
1982-1985, $1,440,000 per year; fiscal years 1986-1989, $1,369,000 per
year; fiscal year 1990, $1,975,000; fiscal year 1991, $3,000,000;
fiscal years 1992-1993, $3,500,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
$6,345,000; fiscal years 1995-1997, $5,710,000 per year; fiscal years
1998-2000, $8,990,000 per year; fiscal year 2001, $8,970,222; fiscal
year 2002, $10,485,000; fiscal year 2003, $10,673,171; fiscal year
2004, $9,549,325; fiscal year 2005, $11,145,120; fiscal years 2006 and
2007, $10,677,150 per year; fiscal year 2008, $11,367,864; fiscal year
2009, $12,000,000; and fiscal year 2010, $12,180,000. A total of
$187,881,002 has been appropriated.
Field work is performed at locations that meet specific EPA
requirements for appropriate geographic distribution of locations for
regulatory data collection. The majority of IR-4 field research is
conducted at 28 Field Research Centers in the following 20 States:
California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine,
Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and
Wisconsin. In addition, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has
cooperating IR-4 field research sites in California, Georgia, South
Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. IR-4 laboratory analyses
are being conducted at Agricultural Experiment Stations in California,
Florida, Michigan, and New York with assistance from State Agricultural
Experiment Stations in Hawaii, North Carolina, and Washington. The ARS
laboratories in Georgia, Maryland, and Washington also cooperate with
the processing of residue sample analysis. Protocol development, data
assimilation, writing petitions, and registration processing are
coordinated through the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station.
Funding applications are reviewed by senior agency technical staff.
The findings of these reviews indicate progress in achieving the
objective of providing safe and effective pest management alternatives
for specialty crops growers. In May 2003, the agency sponsored a peer
review of the project, which consisted of a science panel composed of
representatives from the USDA, the EPA, commodity groups, the food
processing industry, the crop protection industry, and land-grant
universities. The review committee was asked to examine past IR-4
accomplishments, review the current organizational structure,
operations and program, and help chart future directions for the
program. The review panel report was issued in July 2003 with specific
comments and recommendations for each of the above areas. The report
ranked the IR-4 program as outstanding in carrying out its mission of
facilitating the registration of new pest management products for
specialty crops. A strategic planning conference was held in December
2008 to focus on future needs and opportunities. Participants believe
that maintaining and enhancing the core objectives of the Food Use,
Ornamental Horticulture, and Biopesticide programs is essential. An
external peer review was conducted in May 2009.
joint united states/china biotechnology research and extension, utah
The objective of this grant is to establish joint programs between
the United States and China in agricultural biotechnology and related
areas. Joint research programs will focus on animal models for the
study of infectious diseases, natural bioactive compound development,
and cellular communication networks; and agriculturally relevant crops
and forages; livestock cloning and genetics; water resources; and
climate change.
A collaborative project on sheep genomics between Utah State
University and Yunnan University in Kunming has resulted in the
training of graduate and post-graduate students with joint publications
as outcomes.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $446,850; $420,000 in fiscal year
2009; and $210,000 in fiscal year 2010. A total of $1,076,850 has been
appropriated.
The research is being conducted at Utah State University and at
cooperating institutions in China.
Senior agency technical staff conduct a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
The submitting institution conducts a peer review of the proposal prior
to submission.
leopold center hypoxia project, iowa
The objective of this grant is the development of performance-based
strategies for improving land management in the Upper Mississippi River
basin by optimizing agricultural production on specific landscapes,
facilitating land use change to create ecological buffers and water
retention areas, and diversifying land use to increase production of
perennials for bio-based and energy crops.
Demonstration sites for this project have been established and
results of water quality improvement are being analyzed. One key issue
is developing management alternatives for producers. To that end, the
project continues to explore alternative methods to reduce nutrient
losses from agriculture.
The work is being carried out through the Leopold Center for
Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa.
The project was initiated in fiscal year 2004. The appropriation
for fiscal year 2004 was $223,673; for fiscal year 2005, $222,208; for
fiscal year 2006, $219,780; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year
2008, $112,209; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $105,000 per year.
A total of $987,870 has been appropriated for this project.
A programmatic review of this project is expected to be conducted
in 2010. The most recent review was conducted by a NIFA National
Program Leader who visited the campus at Iowa State University and met
with project officials in fiscal year 2006. The Project leader met with
the National Program Leader responsible for oversight of this project
in 2008.
livestock and dairy policy, new york and texas
The objective of this grant is to provide timely and comprehensive
analysis of numerous policy and technological changes affecting
livestock and dairy farmers and agribusinesses and advise them and
policymakers promptly of possible outcomes.
The program continues to provide timely assessments and evaluations
of provisions and proposed changes in agricultural policies, the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and the North American Free
Trade Agreement; various income and excise tax measures; and
alternative pricing measures for milk. Work on most projects continues
under Project 576. Accomplishments under various sub-projects of
Project 594 include econometric models of price transmission processes
in U.S. dairy markets. Both institutions maintain extension outreach
programs to disseminate results of their analysis throughout the United
States. They have organized a national Dairy Markets and Policy
Extension Committee to advise and assist them in this effort. This
committee was especially helpful to USDA in educating farmers about
proposed milk marketing order changes last year.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
year 1989, $450,000; fiscal year 1990, $518,000; fiscal years 1991-
1993, $525,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $494,000; fiscal years 1995-
1998, $445,000 per year; fiscal year 1999 and 2000, $475,000 per year;
fiscal year 2001, $568,746; fiscal year 2002, $558,000; fiscal year
2003, $600,074; fiscal year 2004, $894,690; fiscal year 2005, $892,800;
fiscal year 2006, $990,000; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008,
$737,799; and fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $693,000 per year. A total of
$12,395,109 has been appropriated.
The research is being conducted at Cornell University and Texas A&M
University.
A formal evaluation of this project has not been conducted. Annual
proposals for funding, however, are peer reviewed for relevance and
scientific merit. The NIFA contact is also in regular contact with
principal researchers at each institution to discuss progress toward
project objectives.
maple research, vermont
The objective of the grant is to investigate several novel maple
sap vacuum tubing collection systems in order to develop a cost-
effective system that maximizes sap yield.
Research funded by the USDA Special Grants for Maple since 2005 has
focused on the effects of sap processing technology on maple syrup
chemistry and quality. Initial studies during the spring seasons of
2006 and 2007 examined the impacts of air injection of maple sap and
concentrate on maple syrup chemical composition and flavor. In general,
air injection, either of sap or concentrate, results in production of
maple syrup that is significantly lighter in color, but with relatively
few other changes of consequence. In 2008, as a result of producer
desires to reduce energy consumption by further increasing reverse
osmosis concentration, researchers compared the effects of boiling 8
degree Brix and 21 degree Brix sap concentrate. In addition to the
initial ``sweetening'' boil, during the 2009 production season
researchers were able to complete five test boils in two identical
syrup evaporators with the different levels of sap concentrate.
Laboratory analyses of syrup produced in these experiments are ongoing;
however, it appears that for color grade, trends found in the 2009
season are similar to those observed in 2008, although syrup is
produced at a considerably faster rate at higher concentrations.
Work under this project began in fiscal year 1985. Annual
appropriations in support of this project are as follows: fiscal year
1985, $100,000; fiscal years 1986 and 1987, $95,000 per year; fiscal
years 1988 and 1989, $100,000 per year; fiscal years 1990-1993, $99,000
per year; fiscal year 1994, $93,000; fiscal years 1995-1997, $84,000
per year; fiscal years 1998-2000, $100,000 per year; fiscal year 2001,
$119,000; fiscal year 2002, $120,000; fiscal year 2003, $149,025;
fiscal year 2004, $133,209; fiscal year 2005, $131,936; fiscal year
2006, $137,610; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $97,314;
$155,000 in fiscal year 2009; and $165,000 in fiscal year 2010. The
total appropriation was $2,739,094.
This research is being conducted at the Proctor Maple Research
Center at the University of Vermont in Burlington.
The proposal was evaluated by NIFA Staff in September 2009.
Approval was granted based on the quality of the proposal, the
facilities, faculty, and previous Current Research Information System
(CRIS) reports.
meadowfoam, oregon
The objective of this grant is to increase the productivity and
profitability of meadow foam as an oilseed crop by developing new
varieties that out-yield previously grown varieties. Four new
experimental varieties were developed in 2008-2009 and planted for
further increase and yield evaluation.
Breeding and genetics, weed management, and other research
activities are being carried out in field, greenhouse, and laboratory
facilities managed by the Department of Crop and Soil Science at Oregon
State University, Corvallis. Assessment of herbicidal activity of
glocosinolate derivatives is conducted at the Columbia Basin
Agricultural Research Center, Pendleon, Oregon.
The work supported by this grant began in 1999, and the
appropriation for fiscal years 1999-2000 was $300,000 per year; for
fiscal year 2001, $299,340; for fiscal year 2002, $293,000; for fiscal
year 2003, $293,083; for fiscal year 2004, $262,442; for fiscal year
2005, $259,904; for fiscal year 2006, $257,400; for fiscal year, 2007,
$0; for fiscal year 2008, $191,649; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$180,000 per year. A total of $2,816,818 has been appropriated.
Evaluation of this project is conducted annually based on the
annual progress report and discussions with the principal investigator
as appropriate. In the fall of 2006, a discussion on progress was held
with the Oregon Meadowfoam Oilseed Growers Association. The evaluation
is conducted by the National Program Leader for Agricultural Materials
who has determined that research is progressing and is in accordance
with the mission of the agency.
michigan biotechnology consortium
The objectives of the grant are to increase the utilization of
agricultural raw materials; to develop bioprocessing technology to
manufacture products from agricultural raw materials; to reduce
agricultural surpluses; and to reduce the need to import foreign
petroleum, thereby decreasing environmental costs of agricultural
products and processes.
Recent accomplishments include identification of a bacterium,
Actinobacillus succinogenes, capable of utilizing both hexose and
pentose sugars simultaneously for the production of succinic acid,
demonstration that this organism is capable of converting hydrolyzed
raw starch efficiently to succinic acid in a clean-not-sterile
environment, and demonstration that biomass-derived sugar streams,
generated through pre-treatment and hydrolysis of corn fiber, can serve
as sugar sources in succinic fermentations. Additional goals for this
project include: optimizing the physical, chemical and mechanical
properties of cellulose in the form of nanowhiskers and microfibrils as
reinforcement in polymer matrix nanocomposites; developing a
biodegradable, thermoplastic cellulose polymer based on environmentally
benign processing techniques; developing a commercially viable process
for the production of succinic acid from bio-based feedstocks; and
identifying new commercially attractive biobased technologies. Six
promising technologies for new biobased products have been identified
and further research on these technologies is being initiated.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1989, and the
following amounts have been appropriated: in fiscal year 1989,
$1,750,000; in fiscal year 1990, $2,160,000; in fiscal year 1991,
$2,246,000; in fiscal years 1992-1993, $2,358,000 per year; in fiscal
year 1994, $2,217,000; in fiscal year 1995, $1,995,000; in fiscal years
1996 and 1997, $750,000 per year; in fiscal years 1998-2000, $675,000
per year; in fiscal year 2001, $723,405; in fiscal year 2002, $481,000;
in fiscal year 2003, $623,918; in fiscal year 2004, $558,684; in fiscal
year 2005, $554,528; in fiscal year 2006, $549,450; in fiscal year
2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008, $409,116; and in fiscal years 2009 and
2010, $384,000 per year. A total of $23,277,101 has been appropriated.
This research is being conducted on the campus of Michigan State
University and at the Michigan Biotechnology Institute. Technology
demonstrations are occurring throughout the United States.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
The submitting institution conducts a peer review of the proposal prior
to submission.
midwest center for bioenergy grasses, indiana
The objective of this grant is to optimize bioenergy crops for
their end-use production as biofuels by (1) exploring grass genetics
for improved feedstock quality and quantity; (2) optimizing biomass
architecture for end-use production; (3) developing cropping systems
for plant production, sustainability, and cost efficiency; and (4)
developing direct-conversion technologies for scalable and distributive
hydrocarbon refineries.
Researchers have already engaged growers, ethanol producers, and
implement companies to work with the research center to test and grow
feedstocks and produce and assess the resulting ethanol. Test plots to
determine soil characteristics and long-term sustainability have been
established.
Fiscal year 2009 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant. An amount of $188,000 per year was appropriated for
fiscal years 2009 and 2010. A total of $376,000 has been appropriated.
The research is being conducted by Purdue University at regional
Purdue Agricultural Centers and at Purdue University's Water Quality
Field Station.
Evaluation of this project is conducted yearly based on annual
progress reports and discussions with the principle investigators over
the course of the year. This project is making progress in accordance
with the mission of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
midwest poultry consortium, iowa
The objective of the grant is to conduct poultry research based on
current and projected needs of the poultry system in the Midwest.
The Midwest Poultry Consortium priorities for the poultry industry
in the Midwest are improving efficiency and sustainability of poultry
production through integrated, collaborative research and technology
transfer. This project has focused on identifying biomarkers for
beneficial traits, mechanisms of muscle growth, and practices to reduce
malodorous compounds; as well as developed new vaccines and food
products. It has also developed new regional collaborative approaches
in research and technology transfer involving land-grant and other
universities, the Federal Government, and the private sector on
priority areas of local needs and problems of regional/national scope.
Research projects supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2002
with an appropriation of $400,000. This was followed in fiscal year
2003 with $695,450; in fiscal year 2004, $626,283; in fiscal year 2005,
$682,496; in fiscal year 2006, $675,180; in fiscal year 2007, $0; in
fiscal year 2008, $502,458; and in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $471,000
per year. The total amount appropriated is $4,523,867.
Research is conducted by member States of the Midwest Poultry
Consortium Research, which are: Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,
South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Experts in other States collaborate on
projects.
The progress under each project is reported yearly and found to be
satisfactory. An annual merit review of projects is provided by staff.
milk safety, pennsylvania
The objective of this grant is to improve the safety of pasteurized
fluid milk, addressing critical control points from pre-pasteurization
contamination of milk from the distribution system to the consumer.
Researchers have gathered preliminary data that uses a general
approach to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms which may lead to
a rapid, cost effective method of differentiating E. coli O157:H7
strains. A bioreporter-based diagnostic test for detection of organic
toxicants such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, trichloroethylene,
and xylene directly from milk and milk products was developed. The
molecular beacon-based real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction assays for
detection of foodborne pathogens, including Campylobacter jejuni,
Escherichia coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella,
Staphylococcus aureus, and bioterrorism agent Bacillus anthracis, were
developed.
Grants have been awarded for milk consumption and milk safety from
funds appropriated as follows: fiscal years 1986-1989, $285,000 per
year; fiscal year 1990, $281,000; fiscal year 1991, $283,000; fiscal
year 1992, $284,000; fiscal year 1993, $184,000; fiscal years 1994-
1998, $268,000 per year; fiscal year 1999, $250,000; fiscal year 2000
$297,500; fiscal year 2001, $374,175; fiscal year 2002, $600,000;
fiscal year 2003 $745,125; fiscal year 2004, $667,041; fiscal year
2005, $703,328; fiscal year 2006, $780,120; fiscal year 2007, $0;
fiscal year 2008, $586,863; fiscal year 2009, $771,000; and fiscal year
2010, $821,000. A total of $10,108,152 has been appropriated.
This research is conducted at the Pennsylvania State University,
State College, Pennsylvania.
This project was evaluated in April 2009 by NIFA staff using
Current Research Information System reports and the submitted proposal.
This review by staff concluded that the Pennsylvania State University
faculty and facilities are adequate for the successful completion of
this project.
minor use animal drugs
The objective of this grant is to facilitate the registration
process for therapeutic compounds in minor food and fiber animal
species. This cooperative effort between State, Federal and industry
personnel will obtain minor and specialty animal drug clearances i.e.
tolerances, exemptions, and registrations. The activities will include
determining and prioritizing minor use needs and data requirements,
reviews, analyzes and evaluations of minor use research proposals;
developing and assembling data for minor use drug registrations; and
preparing and submitting petitions for drug registrations.
Currently, data generated through this project has led to improved
animal health and welfare due to new applications of drugs for minor
species that are made available. This project will facilitate the safe
and efficacious use of drugs to improve the health and welfare of minor
animal species and facilitate use of drugs for minor uses in major
animal species.
Fiscal year 2009 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant. However, this grant was previously funded starting in
fiscal year 1982 through fiscal year 2006 with appropriations totaling
$10,803,443. The fiscal years 2009 and 2010 appropriations are $429,000
per year for appropriations totaling $858,000.
The work is being carried out at Cornell University, the University
of Florida, the University of California--Davis, and Iowa State
University.
The fiscal year 2009 proposal was institutionally peer-reviewed at
Cornell University, the University of Florida, the University of
California--Davis, and Iowa State University. In addition, a NIFA
National Program Leader reviewed the proposal and determined that the
research project was appropriate and addresses important opportunities
for better understanding of the need to obtain minor and specialty
animal drug clearances. Furthermore, the feasibility, budget, time-
frame, and facilities for the project were adequate. The National
Program Leader noted that these ongoing research projects outline a
program which builds upon established resources and responds to
national research need for data on safe and effective drugs, such as
are available for cattle, swine, and poultry.
molluscan shellfish, oregon
The objectives of this grant are to establish a repository for
molluscan shellfish germplasm, to establish breeding programs for
commercial production of molluscan shellfish, and to establish a
resource center for industry researchers and other interested parties
in the United States and abroad.
The program has developed improved strains of oysters which have
been evaluated by industry collaborators in Alaska, Washington, Oregon,
and California. Several commercial oyster hatcheries have used the
breeding program's broodstock to produce billions of spat for the west
coast oyster industry and foreign markets. A repository has been
established to conserve genetic materials from oyster lines with a
redundant, second repository to protect the selected lines of oysters
developed by this program and is co-administered and funded in
partnership with industry collaborators.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1995 with an
appropriation of $250,000; in fiscal year 1996, $300,000; in fiscal
years 1997-2000, $400,000 per year; in fiscal year 2001, $399,120; in
fiscal year 2002, $391,000; in fiscal year 2003, $392,433; in fiscal
year 2004, $350,917; in fiscal year 2005, $348,192; in fiscal year
2006, $361,350; in fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008, $269,103;
and in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $253,000 per year. A total of
$5,168,115 has been appropriated.
The work is being conducted by Oregon State University at their
Hatfield Marine Science Center located in Newport, Oregon, in
cooperation with commercial shellfish producers in California, Oregon,
Washington, and Alaska.
The agency's National Aquaculture Program staff review the project
annually as the proposals are submitted to the agency with details of
planned research studies. The proposed research is consistent with the
National Aquaculture Research and Development Strategic Plan. The
Agency conducted a post-award management workshop in December 2009 that
included reporting of progress and accomplishments with a focus on
quality, performance, and relevancy.
multi-commodity research, oregon
The objective of this grant is to provide agricultural market
research and analysis to support Pacific Northwest producers and
agribusinesses and to identify potential value-added markets and
product opportunities in the Pacific Rim countries.
A couple examples of current work includes:
Marketing and Trade Economics.--The reinstatement of State
slaughter and processing inspection programs could provide new
opportunities for processing facilities and livestock producers in
terms of value-added meat products and sales. For these and other
reasons, ongoing work and surveys are being undertaken to assess
interest in a State-Federal meat inspection program in Oregon and
Washington.
Value-added Product Development.--A number of value-added projects
were initiated over the past year, including product development
activities, ingredient formulation, and shelf-life studies. There have
been several ongoing laser technology projects to explore the benefits
of laser scoring on fruits to increase infusion of high fructose corn
syrup (HFCS) to produce a shelf stable product. An example is work on
blueberries where laser scoring followed by HFCS infusion provided a
superior quality dehydrated product. However, preliminary test results
of laser-scored frozen raspberries showed that laser scoring does not
significantly improve the infusion rate, the dehydration rate, or the
weight loss of the laser-scored raspberries compared to control
raspberries. This is probably due to the more delicate skin of the
raspberries compared to the harder outer core of blueberries.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1993. The
appropriations amount to the following: fiscal year 1993, $300,000;
fiscal year 1994, $282,000; fiscal years 1995-2000, $364,000 each year;
fiscal year 2001, $363,199; fiscal year 2002, $356,000; fiscal year
2003, $397,400; fiscal year 2004, $354,894; fiscal year 2005, $353,152;
fiscal year 2006, $349,470; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008,
$260,166; and fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $244,000 per year. In total,
this research project has received $5,688,281.
The work is being carried out at Oregon State University in
Corvallis, and at the Food Innovation Center in Portland, Oregon.
NIFA conducted a merit review of the project in May 2001, as it
evaluated the proposal submitted that year. This project was also
assessed in 2005 in preparation for an external review of agricultural
markets and trade as a portion of the Office of Management and Budget
Performance Assessment Rating Tool. Furthermore, reports have been
submitted to the Current Research Information System to reflect
accomplishments for 2006, 2007, and 2008. Additionally, progress
reports are being monitored for satisfactory accomplishments and
timelines.
national beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium, colorado, georgia,
and new york
The objective of this grant is to develop and implement improved
methodologies and technologies for genetic evaluation of beef cattle to
maximize the impact genetic programs have on the economic viability,
international competitiveness, and sustainability of United States beef
cattle producers, and to provide consumers with affordable and healthy
beef products, and to develop one national system for the genetic
evaluation for all breeds of beef cattle.
An outcome of this project is that producers will be able to alter
nutrient composition of beef--for example, fatty acid composition, iron
content, and others--through selection, which will enhance its
nutritional value, thus improving human health. To achieve this
outcome, Iowa State University researchers will determine nutrient
composition of beef samples and evaluate any influence these nutrient
components have on tenderness/sensory characteristics. For adaptation,
researchers are developing phenotypic--reproduction and stayability--
and Deoxyribonucleic Acid resources on populations of cattle at large
ranches located around the United States. Stayability will be defined
as the probability a female stays in the herd through three
pregnancies. Cattle health is an important component to profitability.
Over 2 years, 1,600 calves from a single large ranch will be owned by
and fed at a cooperating feedlot. Data on incidence of disease,
behavior, such as flight speed and chute behavior, and growth and
carcass traits as well as Deoxyribonucleic Acid samples will be
collected by Colorado State University. It is anticipated that 80
percent of the calves will be identified back to their sire through
Deoxyribonucleic Acid parentage testing. Whole genome scans will be
done on the sick calves and a representative sample of those identified
as not being sick in the feedlot growing phase of the study. The
National Beef Cattle Genetic Evaluation Consortium is involved in
producer education through workshops and symposium and train-the-
trainer educational events.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2001. The
appropriation for fiscal year 2001 was $284,373; for fiscal year 2002,
$343,000; for fiscal year 2003, $667,632; for fiscal year 2004,
$671,018; for fiscal year 2005, $779,712; for fiscal year 2006,
$871,200; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $655,380; for
fiscal year 2009, $615,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $655,000. The
total amount appropriated is $5,542,315.
Research is conducted at the three universities involved in the
consortium: Colorado State University, Cornell University, and
University of Georgia and three affiliates--Iowa State University,
Kansas State University and University of Kentucky--which are
collaborating in enhancing the national genetic evaluation system that
producers widely use for making genetic improvements in their beef
herds. Additionally, they collaborate with United States beef cattle
breed associations and many purebred and commercial beef cattle
operations in the United States.
The proposal was peer-reviewed at the university prior to
submission. A merit review was conducted by the agency prior to
funding. The NIFA National Program Leader meets on a yearly basis with
the project director and co-project directors to discuss and evaluate
progress. It is concluded that this project is making progress.
national center for soybean biotechnology, missouri
The objective of this grant is to integrate basic and applied
research to develop superior soybean cultivars that will help U.S.
farmers maintain global competitiveness.
Researchers on have used the technique of fluorescence in-situ
hybridization to create a karoytype of all soybean chromosomes. It has
been difficult for researchers to map the physical locations of genes
onto soybean chromosomes because soybean chromosomes are small, and all
about the same size and shape. The new karyotype makes it possible for
researchers to distinguish each distinct pair of soybean chromosomes.
The results of this research were presented at an international
conference in 2009 and will be submitted for publication in 2010. Using
the new information from the karyotype, researchers have already
detected a chromosome translocation in wild soybeans that is not
present in domestic soybeans. This finding is of significance to
soybean breeders who are working with wild soybeans to broaden the
narrow genetic diversity of cultivated soybeans. It will help to
predict and work around the loss of fertility that is often a barrier
in crosses between wild and cultivated soybeans. Researchers are using
information from the newly available soybean genome sequence to
identify genetic markers for important, hard-to-select soybean traits.
This year, they have identified quantitative trait loci, a type of
linked genome markers, for Asian soybean rust and for soybean cyst
nematode. They are particularly excited about the nematode resistance
gene because it appears to be a different gene from the nematode
resistance presently used in soybean breeding throughout the United
States. The availability of different resistance genes will help
protect this valuable crop.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2004. The
appropriation for fiscal year 2004 was $894,690; for fiscal year 2005,
$940,416; for fiscal year 2006, $977,130; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for
fiscal year 2008, $734,820; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$690,000 per year. A total of $4,927,056 has been appropriated.
Research is conducted at the University of Missouri at Colombia.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
The submitting institution conducts a peer review of the proposal prior
to submission.
nematode resistance genetic engineering, new mexico
The objective of this grant is to provide an alternative approach
for the control of plant parasitic nematodes and insects through the
use of molecular biology to transfer pesticide resistance to plants.
Previous accomplishments include enhancing the genetic expression
of natural pesticides, development of genetic constructs with improved
effectiveness, adaptation of genetic promoters for specific crop
plants, and molecular characterization of targeting sequences. Recent
work has focused on development of engineered nematode resistance,
development of molecular tools for rapid and highly accurate pest
detection, and development of resistance genes to viral plant
pathogens. Continuing work includes: cloning of a collagenase gene for
nematode resistance from the model nematode C. elegans and creating
transgenic plants that express this novel collagenase; development of
transgenic plants that express novel Bt toxins which have shown promise
as nematode resistance genes; development of molecular identification
technology for rapid high accuracy identification of pests. Results of
this research have been used to differentiate endemic and exotic
species of fire ants, differentiate specific strains of alfalfa weevil
which are morphologically indistinguishable but have different
behaviors in the field, identify the occurrence of Pierce's disease, a
highly important disease of grapes, in New Mexico, and for the
continued development of genes that confer broad spectrum resistance to
multiple plant viruses. During the coming year, researchers will focus
on developing additional sequences that can be used to distinguish
these and other hard to differentiate Meloidogyne species. This assay
will be valuable for rapid identification of nematodes in the field,
especially for Meloidogyne spp. that cannot be identified beyond the
genus level using morphological characteristics of juveniles.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991, and the
following amounts have been appropriated: in fiscal years 1991-1993,
$150,000 per year; in fiscal year 1994, $141,000; in fiscal years 1995-
2000, $127,000 per year; in fiscal year 2001, $126,721; in fiscal year
2002, $147,000; in fiscal year 2003, $146,045; in fiscal year 2004,
$130,227; in fiscal year 2005, $138,880; in fiscal year 2006, $137,610;
in fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008, $223,425; and in fiscal
years 2009 and 2010, $209,000. A total of $2,820,908 has been
appropriated.
Research is being conducted at New Mexico State University and at
collaborating universities in the region.
Project proposals are subjected to peer review at the submitting
institution and merit review by senior agency technical staff.
nevada arid rangelands initiative
The objectives of this grant are: (1) healthy rangelands for
multiple uses; (2) improved campus-based range management education
programs; (3) healthy economies at the ranch, community, and county
level; and (4) public land decisionmaking models that value and support
public inputs.
The project initiated a mini-grant program that is stakeholder-
driven, integrated with Cooperative Extension as well as Federal and
State agencies, and peer and stakeholder reviewed to address critical
issues for the multiple uses of the Nevada arid rangelands and support
for rural economies. Considerable progress has been made in invasive
weed management, fuel load reduction, fire management and restoration
of Great Basin rangelands; assessment of pinyon-juniper expansion;
restoration of sagebrush, woodland, and riparian ecosystems; rangeland
management/wildlife interactions including sage grouse and pygmy rabbit
habitats, persistence of native plant species, disease transfer between
bighorn and domestic sheep; the production of water efficient
alternative crops such as native seed; and policies that affect the
sustainability of agriculture and rural economies.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 2000 was $255,000; fiscal year 2001,
$299,340; fiscal year 2002, $400,000; fiscal year 2003, $521,588;
fiscal year 2004, $467,227; fiscal year 2005, $480,128; fiscal year
2006, $498,960; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $365,424;
fiscal year 2009, $376,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $500,000. A total
of $4,163,667 has been appropriated.
Research is conducted at the University of Nevada Main Station
Field Lab in Reno; the Gund Range Research Ranch outside of Austin in
Eureka County, Nevada; Bureau of Land Management allotments near Elko
and Winnemucca; and at selected ranches and other often remote offsite
locations. Part of the project helps to fund student exchange with
Turkmenistan.
NIFA expects to conducts a site visit in 2010. The institution
conducts a mini-grant program that sends the proposals out for peer and
stakeholder review and provides funding for the highest quality
relevant projects that address the most critical issues facing their
stakeholders. They instituted an annual review process where the
project investigators provide a written and oral presentation regarding
the progress the project is making toward obtaining its goals and plans
for continuation. The NIFA National Program Leader for Rangeland and
Grassland Ecosystems is in close contact with the project director and
several of the mini-grant project directors for this research.
new century farm, iowa
An objective of this grant is to improve the cost-effectiveness of
producing biofuels, bioenergy, industrial chemicals, and biobased
products from corn and soybeans, and alternative cellulosic feedstocks
such as corn grain fiber, corn cobs, corn stover, switch grass, and
other sources of biomass. Another objective is to develop microbial co-
products that are desired by the monogastric (swine and poultry) and
ruminant livestock feed industry.
Progress to date has demonstrated opportunities to improve the
energy and water balances in dry-grind ethanol plants and to produce a
high-protein feed product for non-ruminants by cultivating the fungal
organism Rhizopus microsporus on excess thin stillage. The fungi remove
waste products from yeast fermentation. Waste products include
glycerol, lactic, and acetic acids. Their removal resulted in the
ability to recycle recovered water and enzymes. This greatly reduced
energy input into the ethanol process by avoiding the need for
evaporating thin stillage. A provisional patent has been filed for five
strategies to recover corn germ, during or after fermentation to
improve ethanol yield, recover edible oil, and improve quality of
ethanol feed coproducts. Laboratory-scale work has shown that
oleaginous yeast grows well and accumulates oil when cultivated on
glycerol, a byproduct of biodiesel production; therefore, the glycerol
byproduct serves as a feedstock for biodiesel.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $223,425; $282,000 in fiscal year
2009; and $350,000 in fiscal year 2010. A total of $855,425 has been
appropriated.
The research is conducted at Iowa State University.
A report of progress in fiscal year 2009 has been evaluated, and it
has been determined that progress is being made.
new crop opportunities, kentucky
The objective of this grant is to develop, demonstrate, and assist
in the adoption of more profitable production and marketing systems for
horticultural crops and specialty grains.
Accomplishments include the establishment of a Web site to provide
information to farmers and extension agents about the Center's
research, and to provide information on additional crops. The Web site
now includes profiles of 123 crops with production, marketing, and
budget information to help farmers determine if a particular crop is
right for them. The Web site also offers links to decision aids
available through the University of Kentucky's Department of
Agricultural Economics, crop budgets, and price reports from farmers
markets and produce auctions around the State. Kentucky's farmers
markets have grown steadily for the past 5 years, and growers
throughout the State use the New Crops price reports as guidelines for
pricing their produce and value-added products. The State's farmer's
market vendors totaled more than 2,000 in 2009. Training sessions have
been offered around the State to help extension agents learn how to aid
farmers in their counties who want to try new crops. Sweet sorghum
research led to the release of the male-sterile hybrid KN Morris. In
2009, more than 1,000 pounds of KN Morris seed was sold. This indicates
that more than 300 acres and over 100 producers are growing the
variety. A recent budget for sweet sorghum estimated that net profits
of more than $2,500 per acre are possible. In addition, the sweet
sorghum improvement project has produced and distributed seed of
several varieties for which there is a demand for small quantities
worldwide, primarily for ethanol research. Breeding triple-null soybean
cultivars was among the original New Crops research projects in 2000.
In 2009, the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Seed Commodity
Committee approved the release of KY04-ns-309, a soybean with a black
seed coat and yellow cotyledons that is a triple seed lipoxygenase
null. Evaluation of flax and chia as potential new crops for Kentucky
began in 2006. A patent is being pursued for development of early
flowering chia (Salvia hispanica) varieties. Research has included
projects on improved production techniques that will benefit organic
vegetable, fruit and grain farmers, and a training session on organic
production and irrigation was offered to extension agents in 2009.
Research has also included projects on conventional produce, as well as
floriculture and nursery crops. Flowering dogwood research has saved
producers $3,250 per acre. Eight years ago, the value of all
horticulture cash receipts in Kentucky was $78.6 million. Kentucky's
vegetables, fruit, nursery and greenhouse industries have grown
steadily, and current industry sales trends point toward 2009 gross
sales of approximately $115 to $120 million.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 2000 was $595,000; for fiscal year 2001,
$723,405; for fiscal year 2002, $735,000; for fiscal year 2003,
$737,177; for fiscal year 2004, $659,088; for fiscal year 2005,
$724,160; for fiscal year 2006, $752,400; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for
fiscal year 2008, $559,059; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$525,000 per year. The total amount appropriated is $6,535,289.
The work is being conducted at the University of Kentucky, its
research centers in Eastern and Western Kentucky, at arboreta and
botanical gardens, and on cooperating farms across the State.
A peer review of the proposal has been conducted by the submitting
institution. Additionally, senior agency technical staff conducted a
critical review of the proposal prior to awarding the grant. Based on
the peer review, the agency's review, and the grantee progress reports,
the project has been successful in meeting its objectives of developing
and assisting in the adoption of more profitable production and
marketing systems for horticultural crops and specialty grains.
new satellite and computer-based technology for agriculture,
mississippi
The objective of this grant is to evaluate site-specific
technologies and develop recommendations for management decisions
related to fertilization, pest control, and other cultural practices
for agricultural crop production in the mid-South.
Yield monitors and variable-rate fertilizer applications have been
evaluated, both operationally and economically, and are being
commercially adopted by farmers. Research projects have resulted in new
decision support systems and have led to new agricultural production
systems that are being marketed by small businesses. Thirteen invention
disclosures, and an equal number of patent applications, are in process
at the institution.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997 under
the former project title Advanced Spatial Technologies with an
appropriation of $350,000; for fiscal year 1998, $600,000; for fiscal
years 1999-2000, $1,000,000 per year; for fiscal year 2001, $997,800;
for fiscal year 2002, $978,000; for fiscal year 2003, $982,572; for
fiscal year 2004, $879,778; for fiscal year 2005, $935,456; for fiscal
year 2006, $926,640; and for fiscal year 2007, $0. In fiscal year 2008,
$697,086 was appropriated under the current project title New Satellite
and Computer-Based Technology for Agriculture; and in fiscal years 2009
and 2010, $654,000 per year. The total amount appropriated is
$10,655,332.
The research is being conducted on various Mississippi Agricultural
Experiment Station facilities and farmer fields around the State.
The project is subject to a thorough institutional peer review
during preparation of the grant proposal. In addition, individual
experiments comprising the project are subject to a year-end assessment
of progress by project staff. Submitted proposals undergo merit review
by one or more agency scientists. A comprehensive review by a panel of
outside experts was conducted following the 2001 crop season. This
review provided suggestions to strengthen and sharpen the focus
beginning with the 2002 fiscal year, including establishment of an
advisory board. A strategic planning effort to identify priorities and
improve management was initiated and now guides the focus of current
work. To better delineate initiation-completion cycles for individual
experiments, beginning in fiscal year 2007, individual experiments have
been reviewed and funded in total at initiation, rather than allocating
continuation funding on an annual basis.
oil resources from desert plants, new mexico
The objectives of this grant are to examine the expression patterns
of 12 putative wax synthases in the wild plant of the mustard genus of
oilseeds, and to use bioinformatics approaches to identify numerous
candidate genes for wax and oil synthesis in other species such as
grapes, rice poplar trees, and others.
The expression of industrial oils in plants through genetic
engineering has proven difficult due to several characteristics of the
oil-producing process in plants. The genes for specialty oils are
difficult to isolate, and successful expression of desired oils
involves complex interactions of several metabolic pathways and
biochemical support components.
This research began in fiscal year 1989 with a $100,000 grant under
the Supplemental and Alternative Crops program. Grants have been
awarded under the Special Research Grants program as follows: for
fiscal year 1990, $148,000; for fiscal years 1991-1993, $200,000 per
year; for fiscal year 1994, $188,000; for fiscal years 1995-1996,
$169,000 per year; for fiscal years 1997-2000, $175,000 per year; for
fiscal year 2001, $174,615; for fiscal year 2002, $196,000; for fiscal
year 2003, $223,538; for fiscal year 2004, $200,808; for fiscal year
2005, $211,296; for fiscal year 2006, $208,890; for fiscal year 2007,
$0; for fiscal year 2008, $186,684; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$176,000 per year. A total of $3,827,831 has been appropriated.
The research is being conducted by the Plant Genetic Engineering
laboratory at New Mexico State University at Las Cruces.
The project is evaluated by senior agency technical staff based on
the annual progress report. A site visit was made in April 2005.
Progress in the metabolic engineering of target organisms was
determined to be satisfactory and meets the mission of the agency.
organic cropping, oregon
The objectives of this grant are to develop a fertilizer calculator
for cover crop systems; investigate biological pest management
strategies to encourage beneficial predator; screen onion and broccoli
varieties for suitability in organic systems; and identify weed control
strategies for forage systems and cereal crop systems.
Accomplishments to date include establishing plots, collecting data
and disseminating information on organic cereal crops, an organic
fertilizer calculator for cover crops, vegetable variety trials, and
beneficial ground beetle activities.
The project began in fiscal year 2008 with an appropriation for of
$148,950; in fiscal year 2009, $140,000; and in fiscal year 2010,
$149,000. A total of $437,950 has been appropriated.
The work is being carried out at Oregon State University and on
working farms in the State.
Fiscal year 2008 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant so NIFA has not conducted an evaluation of this project.
organic cropping, washington
The objective of this grant is to address multiple areas of
interest identified by the organic industry including organic seed
protection and production, understory management in tree and vine
crops, organic weed control for annual crops, organic pest and nutrient
management, and analysis of economic and marketing trends.
Organic seed treatments were tested for their ability to control
soil-borne diseases in vegetables, and several show promise. After
evaluating vegetable varieties, several new varieties were released.
Research on integrating organic grain and livestock production in
dryland farming is being conducted on two organic farms has shown that
after alfalfa take-out, organic grains yielded similarly to the
conventional local average as long as the alfalfa was successfully
taken out. Integration of organic crops with livestock was economically
successful in 2008 both for livestock producers adding a grain
component and for grain producers adding a livestock component. Results
have been shared in 29 presentations at conferences and field days and
on the Web site of Washington State University's Center for Sustaining
Agriculture and Natural Resources. Five scientific journal articles and
three non-refereed reports have been published. The systems, methods,
and products evaluated by this program are used not only by certified
organic and transitional organic farmers but also increasingly by
conventional producers as economic, environmental, safety, and market
pressures increase. Several of these subprojects have the potential to
advance sustainable agriculture on a national scale. New wheat
varieties will be developed and selected in organic systems and will be
available to wheat growers throughout the United States. Organic
vineyard management techniques will be relevant to growers in other
regions of the country with similar wet growing conditions. Organic
seed treatment results will be relevant to all growers regardless of
location. Orchard management for nitrogen and cover crops will be
relevant to orchard growers with similar dry growing conditions.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2003, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 2003 was $124,188; for fiscal year 2004,
$223,673; for fiscal year 2005, $359,104; for fiscal year 2006,
$355,410; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $264,138; for
fiscal year 2009, $248,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $264,000. A total
of $1,838,513 has been appropriated.
The work is being carried out at university research farms,
laboratories, greenhouses, and other facilities at Washington State
University, and on the farms of cooperating growers in Washington
State.
Annual proposals and progress reports are reviewed by senior agency
technical staff. The research is addressing industry needs and shows
good stakeholder involvement and responsiveness.
organic waste utilization, new mexico
The objective of this grant is the qualification of the effects of
applying dairy-derived compost as a soil amendment, relating nutrient
availability, plant growth, irrigation requirements, and heavy metal
uptake when compared to applications of raw dairy waste.
Compost application regarding soil fertility, plant growth, water
retention, and salinity is on-going. The new composting technology has
little to no investment in specialized equipment materials for the bio-
reactor process cost less than $35.00/unit, produces no odors or
commonly associated insects problems, amenable to scaling up, reduces
volatilization and leaching of nutrients to minimal amounts, reduces
the composting time cycle up to 75 percent, reduces water usage by a
factor of 6, and results in a low salinity 2-3 mS/cm\2\, nutrient rich,
high-microbial-biodiversity compost. Standards for the use of compost
for land reclamation are being developed in collaboration with State
agencies.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1996, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 1996 was $150,000; for fiscal years 1997-
2000, $100,000 per year; for fiscal year 2001, $99,780; for fiscal year
2002, $100,000; for fiscal year 2003, $99,350; for fiscal year 2004,
$88,475; for fiscal year 2005, $93,248; for fiscal year 2006, $92,070;
for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $74,475; and for fiscal
years 2009 and 2010, $69,000 per year. A total of $1,355,398 has been
appropriated.
This work is being carried out in New Mexico under the direction of
Waste-management Education and Research Consortium: A Consortium for
Environmental Education and Technology Development in collaboration
with Canon Consulting. Other collaborators include the Composting
Council, N-Viro in Ohio, Plains Electric, and McKinley Paper in New
Mexico.
This project has been evaluated based on the annual progress report
and discussions with the principal investigator in the winter of 2009.
The NIFA National Program Leader for Animal Manure Management has
reviewed the project and determined that progress is satisfactory and
that the research is conducted in accordance with the mission of this
agency.
peach tree short life research, south carolina
The objective of this grant is to find a long-term solution to a
disease syndrome known as Peach Tree Short Life by development and
testing of Guardian rootstocks. These rootstocks have been introduced
in 22 States and their performance has been good for the most part.
However, they report an unacceptable amount of genetic variation in
seedlings produced by clones of the original resistant parents. The
investigators are using molecular marker-assisted techniques to improve
the seedling selection process. Practical field strategies for control
of the infectious nematodes, based on non-chemical and biological
methods are also being developed. The efficacy of a wide variety of
fungicides with different modes of action was determined under lab
conditions for control of Armillaria tabescens. A replicated research
trial investigating pre-plant practices to manage Armillaria root rot
was established on a commercial replant site near Ridge Spring, South
Carolina.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
year 1981, $100,000; fiscal years 1982 to 1985, $192,000 per year;
fiscal years 1986 to 1988, $183,000 per year; fiscal year 1989,
$192,000; fiscal year 1990, $190,000; fiscal years 1991 to 1993,
$192,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $180,000; fiscal years 1995 to
2000, $162,000 per year; fiscal year 2001, $178,606; fiscal year 2002,
$175,000; fiscal year 2003, $260,297; fiscal year 2004, $232,619;
fiscal year 2005, $264,864; fiscal year 2006, $275,220; fiscal year
2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $207,537; and fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$195,000 per year. A total of $5,511,143 has been appropriated.
This research is being conducted at the South Carolina Agricultural
Experiment Station.
The last agency evaluation of this project was a merit review
completed in April 2005. This evaluation concluded that the evaluation
of peach rootstocks with resistance to peach tree short life is of
continued importance in managing this disease. Integrated management
practices are currently being evaluated. Results with ``BY520-9'' have
been so encouraging that a program has been implemented with commercial
nurseries to provide peach growers this rootstock on an experimental
basis, while testing progresses in the southeastern United States.
Guardian Brand ``BY520-9'' is not resistant to ring nematodes, but
peach trees on this rootstock thrive for many years in nematode-
infested soil.
perennial wheat, washington
The objectives of this grant are the development of perennial wheat
lines, to test promising lines for agronomic and grain quality
characters, and to develop a management system for their use on
erodible land in the Pacific Northwest.
Results indicate that there is no relationship between grain yield
and regrowth among wheat lines exhibiting a perennial habit. The
significance of this data is that it should be possible to develop
perennial wheat lines that yield as much as annual wheat.
The research began in fiscal year 2003, and the appropriation for
fiscal year 2003 was $149,025; for fiscal year 2004, $133,209; for
fiscal year 2005, $140,864; for fiscal year 2006, $139,590; for fiscal
year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $104,265; and for fiscal years
2009 and 2010, $98,000 per year. A total of $862,953 has been
appropriated.
This research is conducted at the Washington State University
research farm and on fields of participating farmers.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
The submitting institution conducts a peer review of the proposal prior
to submission. A site review was conducted in 2003, which found the
project to be well organized and managed.
pest management alternatives
The objective of this grant is the development and implementation
of pest management alternatives when regulatory action by the
Environmental Protection Agency, voluntary action by the registrant, or
other circumstances results in the unavailability of certain pesticides
or pesticide uses.
These activities have pertained to pesticides identified for
possible regulatory action under the Food Quality Protection Act of
1996. Through these grants, new pest management tools and techniques
are being developed to address critical pest problems identified by
pest managers and other stakeholders. This program has initiated a
process to address regional priorities established by these
stakeholders.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
years 1996 through 2000, $1,623,000 per year; fiscal year 2001,
$1,619,429; fiscal year 2002, $1,619,000; fiscal year 2003, $1,608,477;
fiscal year 2004, $1,448,404; fiscal year 2005, $1,436,416; fiscal
years 2006 and 2007, $1,421,640 per year; fiscal year 2008, $1,412,046;
fiscal year 2009, $1,412,000; and fiscal year 2010, $1,434,000. A total
of $22,948,052 has been appropriated.
All State agricultural experiment stations, all colleges and
universities, other research institutions and organizations, Federal
agencies, private organizations or corporations, and individuals are
eligible to compete for this funding. This research is currently being
carried out by State agricultural experiment stations and other
research organizations located in several States.
Each new request for applications and all submitted project
proposals are evaluated annually by a regional panel for relevancy and
a national panel for scientific merit. Reviews are held annually to
evaluate the progress and scope of this program. The conclusions
continue that the program is on course and making good progress. The
projects supported by this special research grant program have
consistently provided key knowledge needed in developing new approaches
to pest management.
phytophthora research, georgia
The objective of this grant is to reduce the loss of vegetable
crops due to Phytophthora capsici, evaluating efficacy and economics of
the following practices: Remediation of infected sites, containment of
Phytophthora and limit spread, development and testing of new control
measures including soil treatments, rotational crops, and testing and
treating water sources used for irrigation.
Information on preventive and containment measures will be
distributed and recommendations will be demonstrated with research
plots on grower farms. Integrated management practices are being moved
into the farm sector and on-going monitoring techniques are being
developed.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2006 with an
appropriation of $255,420; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year
2008, $189,663; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $178,000 per year.
A total of $633,083 has been appropriated.
The research is being conducted at facilities operated by the
University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental
Sciences in Tifton, Georgia.
The project proposal will be peer reviewed at the submitting
institution where it will be evaluated for technical quality and
relevance to regional goals by experts with the scientific knowledge
and technical skills to conduct the proposed research work. The
reviewers will read and make comments that will be incorporated into
the proposal by the project director. The agency national program staff
with expertise in plant pathology will evaluate the submitted proposal.
Progress reports will be submitted each year. Additional merit review
is conducted annually by senior agency technical staff prior to making
a funding recommendation.
phytophthora research, michigan
The objective of this grant is to reduce the loss of vegetable
crops due to Phytophthora capsici by: developing new techniques to
prevent Phytophthora contamination of irrigation sources because the
disease can spread through water; identifying and developing
Phytophthora-resistant varieties; developing new techniques for
Phytophthora control, including soil additives, mulches, crop rotation
and water management; testing fungicides, biological controls and other
new agents that might control Phytophthora; conducting on-farm research
trials and hands-on grower workshops; and investigating the Fraser fir
as a host to the Phytophthora capsici that historically has only
affected vegetable crops.
Five surface water sites used for vegetable irrigation were
monitored for Phytophthora in two regions of the State. Phytophthora
was recovered from all five sites from mid-June to mid-August. Nearly
4,000 acres of vegetable production were impacted by our findings. In
response, six wells have been drilled and will be used as a source of
clean irrigation water that is free of Phytophthora. Using clean
irrigation water will protect Michigan's vegetable crops and reduce the
spread of Phytophthorato clean fields. Research was also focused on
developing Phytophthora-resistant varieties. The fruit of 31 cucumber
cultigens were screened for resistance to Phytophthora. None of the 31
cultigens exhibited complete resistance, however, six were identified
that reduced spore production. Fruit from a variety of cucurbit crops
was tested for age-related loss in susceptibility to Phytophthora. For
those crops with age-associated increase in resistance, protection by
fungicides will be most critical at the early stages of fruit
development. Efforts was also directed toward the development of new
techniques for Phytophthora control, including soil additives, mulches,
crop rotation and water management. Field experiments were conducted on
a commercial farm to test the effects of cover crops and raised plant
beds on the management of Phytophthora. The cover crops including
oilseed radish, brown mustard, and oriental mustard, provided some
control of the disease but would need to be combined with other
management tools. In some regions of the State where vegetable and
Christmas tree production occur in the same regions, growers will need
to be especially aware of this pathogen's ability to infect vegetables
and Fraser fir as our current research identifies Fraser fir as a host
of Phytophthora capsici. Resources were also focused on testing
fungicides, biological controls and other new agents that might control
Phytophthora. Twenty-five products, including three biopesticides,
three reduced-risk, and five experimental fungicides, were tested alone
and in combination in six field trials during 2006 for management of
Phytophthora on squash, cucumber, and bell peppers with up to 75
percent increased yield compared to controls. The original objectives
were expanded to integrate control techniques and then to conduct on-
farm research trials and hands-on grower workshops. Fungicide and water
management trials were conducted on commercial farms and 21
presentations were made to growers.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2006 with an
appropriation of $495,000; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year
2008, $368,403; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $346,000 per year.
A total of $1,555,403 has been appropriated.
The work is being conducted at Michigan State University with field
research and demonstration plots with commercial growers in Michigan.
The project proposal is peer reviewed at the submitting institution
where it is evaluated for technical quality and relevance to regional
goals by experts with the scientific knowledge and technical skills to
conduct the proposed research work. The reviewers read and make
comments that will be incorporated into the proposal by the project
director. Senior agency technical staff evaluate the submitted proposal
and also conduct merit reviews. Progress reports are submitted each
year.
phytosensors for crop security and precision agriculture, tennessee
The objective of this grant is to develop a biodetection system
that can sense and report the presence of plant pathogens prior to
symptom appearance and spread. The project will combine state-of-the-
art technologies in biotechnology and photonics to produce crop plants
that can be used as early warning sentinels for the detection of plant
diseases.
Current research has focused on developing this biodetection
system, showing proof-of-concept, and initiated preliminary studies of
the biodetection system. Research work is underway to reach this goal.
In 2009, the proposed work has resulted in seven publications with two
additional manuscripts in preparation.
Fiscal year 2009 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $700,000; and for fiscal year 2010,
$1,000,000. A total of $1,700,000 has been appropriated.
The work is being carried out at the University of Tennessee at
Knoxville.
The agency has not evaluated this project, since fiscal year 2009
is the first year that funds were appropriated for this research.
pierce's disease, california
The objective of this grant is to control Pierce's Disease, through
the development of resistant grape clones, supplemented with integrated
management methods.
Recent research has revealed both conventional and transgenic
approaches to creating grapevines with resistance to the causative
agent. Other research is exploring new and conventional methods to
controlling the sharpshooter vectors. Other supported research has
identified proteins contributing to the pathogenicity and virulence of
the causative agent.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2001, and the
amount appropriated was $1,895,820; in fiscal year 2002, $1,960,000; in
fiscal year 2003, $2,235,375; in fiscal year 2004, $2,013,053; in
fiscal year 2005, $2,071,296; in fiscal year 2006, $2,188,890; in
fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008, $1,630,506; in fiscal year
2009, $1,531,000; and in fiscal year 2010, $2,000,000. The total amount
appropriated is $17,525,940.
The research is being carried out by the University of California
Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Funds are awarded
competitively to scientists in California and from other universities
in the United States with pertinent expertise in research on Pierce's
disease.
The agency evaluated the project in August 2009. In December 2009,
senior agency technical staff also evaluated individual research
projects competitively awarded in 2009. Research projects from this
grant are addressing the research objectives for scientific advances to
control Pierce's disease and are integrated and complementary with
other research programs on Pierce's disease.
policy analyses for a national secure and sustainable food, fiber,
forestry and energy program, texas
The objective of this grant is to conduct quantitative policy
analysis of food, farm, fiber, forest, and international economies. The
model estimates the aggregate economic impacts of exogenously specified
bio-fuel production on all endogenous variables in the model, including
price, utilization by category, regional acreage planted and harvested,
and production for each crop for each year simulated dynamically
starting with historically data and simulating into the future as far
as the 2030/31 crop year.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $148,950; in fiscal year 2009,
$140,000; and in fiscal year 2010, $200,000. A total of $488,950 has
been appropriated.
The research will be conducted at Texas A&M University and Auburn
University.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant so NIFA has not conducted an evaluation of this project.
However, the principal investigator and the National Program Leader
maintain regular contact.
potato cyst nematode, idaho
The objectives of this grant are to develop an understanding of
potato cyst nematode reproduction, evaluate bio-fumigants to eradicate
nematodes and cysts, and evaluate the use of microbial, fungal and
plant bio-control approaches to reduce the level of viable cysts in the
field.
Thus far, reproduction research has involved developing
informational resources on nematode production, equipping facilities
for processing and collecting cysts, and developing protocols for
producing new generations of cysts from field harvested nematodes. This
project has facilitated establishing contacts with research programs in
Scotland and Northern Ireland, leveraging the understanding of this
pest and how to manage it as we deal with issues of global food
security. The rearing protocol has been established and cysts are being
produced for use in controlled studies. Isolation and identification of
potential microbial and fungal bio-control agents of G. pallida have
been isolated from field samples that could explain the initial low
hatching rate of the field cysts. Eleven fungal species and four
bacteria were isolated from the field derived G. pallida cysts, based
on DNA sequence evaluation. These microbes may have value as biological
control agents. Initial successes have been achieved on the cyst
viability question. Staining techniques are being perfected, but
initial results indicate that shorter staining periods, as little as 2
days may be sufficient without contributing to nematode mortality due
to the test. Extracts from Brassica juncea and Sinapsis alba seed meal
is being evaluated as potential biofumigants to control G. pallida.
Hatching and viability studies indicate that the extracts do affect
nematode egg and juvenile viability, but studies on cysts will be
conducted in 2010. Potato germplasm screening for potential resistance
to G. pallida has been initiated in association with Agricultural
Research Service potato breeders in Idaho and Washington. Several
potential candidate genotypes were identified with most being products
of interspecific crosses with wild potato relatives. A second study
using germplasm from the National Plant Germplasm System is currently
underway to evaluate less adapted genotypes as potential sources of
resistance to G. pallida. The research program is providing G. pallida
cysts and facilities for work by other G. pallida related programs. The
research program facilitated Agricultural Research Service weed host
studies which resulted in the identification of one nightshade species
that could serve as an alternative host for G. pallida. The program
supplied cysts and laboratory facilities for diffusate fractionation
studies that resulted in the potential isolation of a fraction that
induces a higher rate of hatching. This work could lead to the
development of a method to induce hatching of G. pallida in the field
without an adequate host. G. pallida cysts and DNA from J2 juveniles
was sent to Agricultural Research Service researchers in New York for
molecular studies of G. pallida. To facilitate eradication efforts by
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in southern Idaho, G.
pallida cysts were supplied to serve as controls in viability studies
for potential deregulation of fumigated G. pallida fields. One
additional project was efficacy testing of several fumigants on G.
pallida cysts. Field trials were conducted under controlled conditions
and found all tested fumigants to be effective.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $372,375; and $349,000 per year in
fiscal years 2009 and 2010. A total of $1,070,375 has been appropriated
in the 3 years of the project.
An evaluation of this project has not been conducted since funds
were first appropriated and provided late in fiscal year 2008.
potato breeding research program
The objective of this grant is to improve production and quality of
potatoes for processing and fresh market by breeding new potato
varieties that are high yielding, disease and insect resistant, and
adapted to the growing conditions in their particular areas, both for
fresh market and processing.
Potato breeders must provide farmers with outstanding levels of
performance in more different traits than perhaps any other crop. A
farmer typically needs a potato variety with resistance to 6 to 10
diseases and pests, and 3 to 5 types of tolerance to stresses such as
drought, heat, and frost, and adaptation to sustainable and region-
specific production practices; and even more qualities for processing
or cooking quality and tuber appearance. In the northeastern region,
grower demand for three promising experimental varieties outstripped
seed production capacity, and adoption of two specialty varieties by
small-scale fresh market growers increased. An advanced variety with
good late blight and nematode resistance is ready for use as a parent,
to reduce use of pesticides and reduce growers' loss to pests. Area
planted to a recent release, the heat-necrosis resistant variety Harvey
Blackwell, increased significantly this year. The North Central region
has a large number of novelty potatoes, over 100 selections, in
advanced trials. In the Northwest region, three new varieties were
released. One of these uses 10 to 25 percent less water than standard
older varieties and is expected to replace the older varieties over
much of the acreage. An earlier release, Alturas, requires only half
the nitrogen of standard varieties; this variety was grown on 14,000
acres this past year, with a total savings to producers of about $1.7
million. A molecular marker was developed and is in use to select for
resistance to a prevalent virus that is difficult to detect visually.
In the Western region, about 60 percent of production acres and a
similar percentage of certified seed acres were planted to varieties
developed by this project.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
year 1983, $200,000; fiscal year 1984, $400,000; fiscal year 1985,
$600,000; fiscal years 1986 and 1987, $761,000 per year; fiscal year
1988, $997,000; fiscal year 1989, $1,177,000; fiscal year 1990,
$1,310,000; fiscal year 1991, $1,371,000; fiscal years 1992 and 1993,
$1,435,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $1,349,000; fiscal years 1995-
1998, $1,214,000 per year; fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $1,300,000 per
year; fiscal year 2001, $1,446,810; fiscal year 2002, $1,568,000;
fiscal year 2003, $1,573,704; fiscal year 2004, $1,408,640; fiscal year
2005, $1,496,928; fiscal year 2006, $1,482,030; for fiscal year 2007,
$0; for fiscal year 2008, $1,104,216; for fiscal year 2009, $1,037,000;
and for fiscal year 2010, $1,436,000. A total of $30,369,328 has been
appropriated.
The work is being conducted at State agricultural experiment
stations in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota,
North Dakota, New York, Maine, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina,
Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, Colorado, Texas, and California.
The agency publishes a request for proposals each year for this
project. Funds are awarded after a national-level scientific peer
review. Comments from these agency-managed reviews have resulted in
increased collaboration among States and among stakeholder groups, and
improved technical quality of the research.
precision agriculture, alabama
The objective of this grant is to evaluate and demonstrate the
utility of geospatial applications to crop and forest production in
Alabama.
Research has begun to develop improved relationships between
dynamic soil processes and soil hydraulic properties; develop and
evaluate variable-rate application technologies, e.g., fertilizer,
pesticides; improve sub-stand-level management in forestry operations;
and develop precision irrigation technologies. Adoption of precision
agriculture tools and technologies has increased in Alabama, with
demonstrated economic savings of $2 to $8 per acre for spraying
operations. In 2009, there was a 15 percent increase in the adoption of
subsurface drip irrigation, which provides yield benefits over rain-fed
crops.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $445,857; and for fiscal years 2009
and 2010, $419,000 per year. A total of $1,283,857 has been
appropriated.
The research will be conducted at Auburn University, on experiment
station farms, and in producer fields in Alabama.
The project is subject to a thorough institutional peer review
during preparation of the grant proposal. Submitted proposals undergo
merit review by one or more agency scientists.
precision agriculture, kentucky
The objective of this grant is to develop and evaluate precision
agriculture technologies and provide producers with guidelines for
adoption. Research focuses on agricultural practices and forestry and
natural resources.
Mini-grants are awarded that address both economic and
environmental issues related to soil variability and the application of
precision technologies. To date, more than 80 research papers have been
produced that highlight advances in nitrogen management, soil mapping,
Global Positioning System use and performance, crop yield monitoring
sensors and mapping, remote sensing platforms, variable-rate
technologies, wildlife tracking, delineating field management zones,
and economics-based decision support systems.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999. The
appropriation for fiscal year 1999 was $500,000; for fiscal year 2000,
$850,000; for fiscal year 2001, $748,350; for fiscal year 2002,
$733,000; for fiscal year 2003, $737,177; for fiscal year 2004,
$659,088; for fiscal year 2005, $674,560; for fiscal year 2006,
$668,250; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $502,458; for
fiscal year 2009, $471,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $671,000. A total
of $7,214,883 has been appropriated.
The research is conducted at the Kentucky Agriculture Experiment
Station, University of Kentucky laboratories, and selected producer
field locations.
This project is composed of mini-grants within the institution,
each of which is peer reviewed, and the combined proposal is subjected
to the institution's project approval process. Submitted proposals
undergo merit review by one or more agency scientists. This program has
not been subjected to on-site review by the agency.
preharvest food safety, kansas
The objective of this grant is to identify means to control E. coli
O157 at the farm level through research to develop and validate
improved methods for the detection of E. coli O157:H7 in cattle feces
and environmental samples, to improve the understanding of the natural
ecology of E. coli O157 in cattle operations, and to identify and test
on-farm intervention strategies for control of E. coli O157.
Researchers have completed a study to determine the effects and
interactions of distillers grain and dry-rolled corn supplementation of
steam flaked corn-based finishing diets on fecal shedding of E. coli
O157:H7. Their findings indicate that distillers grain, with or without
dry-rolled corn supplementation, has no effect on fecal E. coli O157:H7
shedding. Other research results suggest that using pre-evisceration
carcass testing to reduce the effect of high shedders within a truck
load of animals may be effective. The researchers have recently
developed a multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) method to detect
six major virulence genes of E. coli O157:H7, which has strengthened
the identification protocol for isolates from fecal and food samples.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1996 with
appropriations through fiscal year 2000 of $212,000 per year; for
fiscal year 2001, $211,534; for fiscal year 2002, $208,000; for fiscal
year 2003, $206,648; for fiscal year 2004, $184,903; for fiscal year
2005, $191,456; for fiscal year 2006, $199,980; for fiscal year 2007,
$0; for fiscal year 2008, $150,936; $142,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
$500,000 for fiscal year 2010. A total appropriation of $3,055,457 has
been appropriated.
The research is being conducted at Kansas State University, College
of Veterinary Medicine, in the Department of Diagnostic Medicine/
Pathiobiology.
An agency evaluation was conducted in November 2009 and the work
was found to be progressing satisfactorily.
preservation and processing research, oklahoma
The objective of the grant is to identify the major limitations for
maintaining quality of harvested fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, herb
and spice crops, and prescribe appropriate harvesting, handling and
processing protocols to extend shelf life and enhance marketability for
horticultural commodities.
The focus has been to maintain and improve profitability of
integrated production and postharvest handling systems to assure an
economic market niche for Oklahoma producers and food processors. Crop
biosensors developed earlier in this project are being commercialized
in Oklahoma for precision agriculture applications, and efforts to
improve precision and expand utility of new generation sensors are
underway. A systematic approach to develop complementary cropping,
harvesting, handling, and processing operation has resulted in
development of improved handling systems for cucurbit, tree fruit, and
nutraceutical crops. Non-destructive processing systems for partial oil
reduction of tree nuts have been developed to extend shelf life and
lower the calorie content for the raw or processed product. A new food
drying and extraction facility started operations in Oklahoma. Systems
for maintenance of high active ingredients in sage, pepper, and
watermelon crops are under development to extend efforts toward
profitable value-added extraction of foods, and expansion of marketing
opportunities for current and potential Oklahoma horticultural crops.
This work has been underway since 1985. Funds have been
appropriated as follows: fiscal year 1985, $100,000; fiscal year 1986,
$142,000; fiscal year 1987, $242,000; fiscal years 1988 and 1989,
$267,000 per year; fiscal year 1990, $264,000; fiscal year 1991,
$265,000; fiscal year 1992, $282,000; fiscal year 1993, $267,000;
fiscal year 1994, $251,000; fiscal years 1995-2000, $226,000 per year;
fiscal year 2001, $225,503; fiscal year 2002, $221,000; fiscal year
2003, $222,544; fiscal year 2004, $199,814; fiscal year 2005, $198,400;
fiscal year 2006, $247,500; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008,
$184,698; and fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $174,000 per year. A total of
$5,550,459 has been appropriated.
This work is being conducted at the Oklahoma State Agricultural
Experiment Station, in conjunction with ongoing production research at
the Wes Watkins Agricultural Research and Extension Center and the
South Central Agricultural Research Laboratories.
An agency scientist conducts a merit review of the proposal
submitted in support of the appropriation annually. Last review of the
project was conducted on June 25, 2009. The specific researches
progressed well and the results were satisfactory.
protein production for research to combat viruses and microbes,
connecticut
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $500,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
protein utilization, iowa
The objective of this grant is to utilize industrial enzymes in
enhancing the value of soybean by creating new protein products.
To date, microscopic observations have shown that High Pressure
Processing was efficient in releasing oil from soybean aggregates.
Adding methanol was equally effective, offering the potential for
incorporating EAEP with biodiesel production. Researchers evaluated
strategies to produce high-protein feed and determined the potential of
the skim milk fraction as a food source. Membrane filtration produced
protein that could be spray-dried and had greatly reduced content of
anti-nutritional factors. Researchers discovered hydrolyzing soy sugars
with a-galactosidase increased sweetness and decreased bitterness of
protease-modified soy protein. Industry partners adopted this
hydrolysis procedure in their processing plant to produce hydrolysate,
and their potential customer, an adhesives compounder, utilized the
product in adhesives. The hydrolysate was compatible with non-phenol
formaldehyde resins. Polyamine-epichlorohydrin can be used in soy
adhesive systems as the primary reactant or as a crosslinker.
Researchers discovered that chemical treatment of EAEP proteins with a
reducing agent improved growth parameters in broiler chicks.
This project began in fiscal year 2001 with an appropriation of
$189,582; $186,000 for fiscal year 2002; $422,238 for fiscal year 2003;
$671,018 for fiscal year 2004; $804,512 in fiscal year 2005; $836,550
in fiscal year 2006; $0 in fiscal year 2007; $623,604 in fiscal year
2008; $586,000 in fiscal year 2009; and $600,000 in fiscal year 2010.
The total appropriation was $4,919,504.
Research is being conducted at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa,
and Genencor International in Rochester, New York.
The last agency evaluation of the project was September 2009. Work
toward the project objectives appeared to be adequate and progressing
according to the projected timetable.
rangeland ecosystems dynamics, idaho
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $300,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
regional barley gene mapping project, oregon
The objective of the grant is to establish a cooperative project
from molecular genetics to breeding that will locate and use new genes
to add value, maximize grain quality, and ensure a more productive and
competitive barley industry.
A multi-institutional approach has been taken, with research being
conducted at institutions in 17 States. Experimental lines developed by
these researchers are being grown and tested in Colorado, Idaho,
Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin.
The first major accomplishment of this research was a barley linkage
map that was the considered the best crop plant linkage map at that
time. The map laid the foundation for breeders and statistical
geneticists to produce the first comprehensive genomic analysis of
agronomic and quality traits in a crop of economic importance.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
year 1990, $153,000; fiscal year 1991, $262,000; fiscal years 1992-
1993, $412,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $387,000; fiscal years 1995-
1998, $348,000 per year; fiscal year 1999, $400,000; fiscal year 2000,
$425,000; fiscal year 2001, $586,706; fiscal year 2002, $760,000;
fiscal year 2003, $755,060; fiscal year 2004, $675,988; fiscal year
2005, $682,496; fiscal year 2006, $675,180; fiscal year 2007, $0;
fiscal year 2008, $502,458; and fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $471,000
per year. A total of $9,422,888 has been appropriated.
Research is being conducted in numerous State agricultural
experiment stations. In recent years, research has been conducted at
experiment stations in Oregon, Colorado, Washington, Montana, Idaho,
North Dakota, Minnesota, New York, Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin,
and California.
Senior agency technical staff conduct a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
The submitting institution conducts a peer review of the proposal prior
to submission. The research supported by this project is competitively
awarded by a panel formed by the National Barley Improvement Committee;
panel members include researchers, growers and industry. Researchers
supported by this project regularly report their results for peer
scrutiny at the annual International Conference on the Status of Plant
and Animal Genome Research, which is co-organized by this agency.
regionalized implications of farm programs, missouri and texas
The objective of this grant is to provide the farm community,
agribusiness groups, and public officials information about farm,
trade, and fiscal policy implications by developing regionalized models
that reflect farming characteristics for major production regions of
the United States.
Aggregate level impacts as well as those for all 102 representative
farms were analyzed. The financial conditions of these farms over the
next 5 to 7 years are presented in the 2009 Food and Agricultural
Policy Research Institute (FAPRI)--United States and World Agricultural
Outlook Baseline data.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1990 and the
appropriation for fiscal year 1990 was $346,000; in fiscal years 1991-
1993, $348,000 per year; $327,000 in fiscal year 1994; $294,000 per
year in fiscal years 1995 through 2000; $293,353 in fiscal year 2001;
$287,000 in fiscal year 2002; $317,920 in fiscal year 2003; $536,814 in
fiscal year 2004; $759,872 in fiscal year 2005; $851,400 in fiscal year
2006; $0 in fiscal year 2007; $633,534 in fiscal year 2008; and
$595,000 per year in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. A total of $8,350,893
has been appropriated.
Research is being conducted by the Texas A&M University and the
University of Missouri at Columbia.
A formal evaluation of this project has not been carried out;
however, the NIFA representative is in frequent communication with the
principal investigator concerning policy analysis procedures and
studies.
renewable energy and products, north dakota
The objectives of this grant are to: determine the potential yield
of selected perennial grass varieties for biomass and biofuel
production, evaluate weed control strategies for biomass crops, examine
the impacts of corn-based ethanol production on markets and
communities, and analyze the availability of nanofibers from crop
residues to be used for biocomposites.
Biomass production plots were seeded at four sites in May 2008.
Initial yields on the dryland sites were lower than expected, but
switchgrass yields at an irrigated site were 26 percent higher than
projected. A total of 4 pre-emergent and 23 post-applied herbicides
have been evaluated for efficacy on switchgrass, quackgrass, and smooth
bromegrass. Switchgrass yield increased two-fold after glyphosate was
applied to an old stand to control cool season grassy weeds. Of these,
nine were chosen for further evaluation of weed control in an
established switchgrass field. Herbicides for most effective control
for quackgrass and smooth bromegrass were identified. Additional
experiments included evaluating potential biomass yield from kenaf,
sunnhemp, sorghums, and millets. Initial results found sorghum and
kenaf have the potential to produce above 10 tons per acre of dry
matter in one season and could be used as annual feedstocks for
cellulosic ethanol production. Sugargbeet pulp is being used as a
feedstock for ethanol production using yeast and E. coli K011. A
solids-fed batch approach has shown that loadings up to 12 percent
solids resulted in maximum yields. A pre-pilot scale pretreatment
facility capable of processing 300 pounds of wheat straw feedstock per
hour has been developed and is in the testing phase. Samples of
cellulose nanofibers and of nanocomposite materials based on these
fibers have been produced. A transportation model has been developed to
optimize shipment of biomass from producing regions to preselected
biofuel-producing plants in the northern plains region and ethanol from
processing plants to blending locations. The model includes over 184
biomass producing regions, approximately 25 predetermined processing
plants and several blending locations. In addition, the model contains
several feedstock storage areas where biomass is converted into pellets
for shipments. An empirical model has been developed to determine the
optimal number, location, and size of cellulose ethanol plant. The
optimal number of plants was determined to be 10 in North Dakota with
an optimal size of production capacity of 110 million gallons.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $744,750; $939,000 in fiscal year
2009; and $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2010. A total of $2,683,750 has
been appropriated.
The research is conducted at North Dakota State University, and the
nanofiber research is conducted in collaboration with Michigan State
University and Michigan Biotechnology Institute.
Fiscal year 2008 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant. The report of progress for fiscal year 2009 has been
evaluated, and progress is being made.
rice agronomy, missouri
The objective of this grant is to increase yield and quality of
rice, reduce the cost of production, and protect the environment in the
rice producing area in the upper Mississippi River Delta Region.
The research has found that growing rice with pivot irrigation
required a higher level of management for irrigation, fertilizer, and
weed control than conventional flood irrigated rice. Possible
advantages to the system are the ability to grow rice in fields
unsuitable for flooding. This type of rice production may have a
positive impact on air quality because of reduced methane emissions and
help conserve energy. Rice production without flooding has the
potential to reduce methane gas production. By reducing irrigation
water use with center pivot systems compared to flooding less
electricity was consumed for pumping. Additionally, the research has
yielded particularly useful information about the efficacy and
environmental impact new pest control systems, sustainable irrigation
and fertilization practices, and the systematic interplay between new
practices. Results were communicated to growers and rice industry
officials through electronic media, as well as the Delta Research
Center field day in September 2009.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2003, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 2003 was $198,700; fiscal year 2004,
$177,944; fiscal year 2005, $212,288; fiscal year 2006, $247,500;
fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $184,698; and fiscal years 2009
and 2010, $174,000 per year. A total of $1,369,130 has been
appropriated.
The work is conducted at the University of Missouri's Delta
Research Center in Portageville.
The annual proposals were peer reviewed at the institution and by
senior agency technical staff. An onsite review is planned for 2011.
ruminant nutrition consortium, montana, north dakota, south dakota,
wyoming
The objective of this grant is to enhance economic development in
the four-State area of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming
by strengthening and capturing value from the ruminant livestock
industry.
To date, five 15 large research trials have been initiated.
Extensive collaborations have been established among researchers,
making all of these projects multi-investigator and multi-
institutional. While the progress reports for these projects are not
yet available, excellent research outcomes are expected from all five
projects.
This grant began in fiscal year 2002 with an appropriation of
$400,000. In fiscal year 2003, the appropriation was $447,075; in
fiscal year 2004, $447,345; in fiscal year 2005, $470,208; in fiscal
year 2006, $489,060; in fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008,
$465,717; and in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $563,000 per year. A total
of $3,845,405 has been appropriated to support this project.
This work is being carried out at South Dakota State University,
North Dakota State University, Montana State University, the University
of Nebraska, and the University of Wyoming.
This project was last reviewed by agency National Program Leaders
in 2008. The results of the evaluation revealed that the research is
timely, well-designed, and addresses issues of local, regional, and
national importance.
rural policies institute, nebraska, iowa, and missouri
The objective of the grant is to create a new model for providing
timely, unbiased estimates of the impacts of policies and new policy
initiatives on rural people and places. That model was developed.
Policy analysis research and dissemination activities expanded in
response to emerging issues in rural America. Rural Policies Institute
(RUPRI) facilitates panels of researchers who collaborate on topical
areas and form the fabric of its research capacity.
In fiscal year 2009, RUPRI expanded its capacity to provide support
to Federal programs and initiatives including developing regional
approaches to rural development, economic targeting analysis, and
collaborations across agencies to enhance rural innovation, nutrition
and wellness, and food systems analysis. It continued the interactive
mapping application that allows USDA to visualize investments in
relation to economic, social, and demographic indicators. It expanded
its capacity to conduct policy analyses in emerging rural development
issues, including broadband deployment and adoption, implications of
climate change and energy independence, and the urban-rural
interdependence import for policy framing. It joined discussions about
the collaboration between philanthropy and government in rural and
regional development and begun research on wealth creation in rural
America. With the Aspen Institute, it convened meetings around food
systems, ecosystem services, and alternative energy. It continued its
communications and outreach efforts, working with State capitols,
public interest groups, trade associations, foundations, nonprofit
intermediaries, and higher education.
The work supported by these grants began in fiscal year 1991 with
an appropriation of $375,000; fiscal year 1992, $525,000; fiscal year
1993, $692,000; fiscal year 1994, $494,000; fiscal years 1995-2000,
$644,000 each year; fiscal year 2001, $822,000; fiscal year 2002,
$1,040,000; fiscal year 2003, $1,261,745; fiscal year 2004, $1,129,298;
fiscal year 2005, $1,205,280; fiscal year 2006, $1,192,950; fiscal year
2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $888,735; fiscal year 2009, $835,000; and
fiscal year 2010, $889,000. A total of $15,214,008 has been
appropriated.
The Institute's member universities are: the University of
Missouri--Columbia; the University of Nebraska--Lincoln; and Iowa State
University, Ames.
NIFA performed an external review of the Social Science Unit at the
University of Missouri--Columbia in fall 2002, and this included a
review of RUPRI. Since 2005 there has been an ongoing process of
strategic review and priority setting. This has resulted in a set of
programmatic and organizational objectives approved by the RUPRI Board
of Directors in 2008. The National Advisory Board provides analysis of
directions, priorities, and outcomes.
rural renewable energy research and education center, wisconsin
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $500,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
russian wheat aphid, colorado
The objectives of the grant are the: (1) discovery of new crop
genes that provide resistance to the Russian wheat aphid and rapid
incorporation into wheat varieties; (2) identification and
characterization of wheat genes involved in the defensive response to
the Russian wheat aphid; (3) determination of mechanisms of Russian
wheat aphid toxicity; (4) establishment of a program for rapid
assessment of wheat quality characteristics using near-infrared
reflectance spectroscopy; (5) development of methods to identify
valuable wheat quality factors in a rapid manner; (6) location and
characterization of the genetic factors controlling drought tolerance
and end-use quality in two mapping populations; and (7) evaluation of
promising lines of wheat for stress tolerance using field, greenhouse
and growth chamber screening techniques.
Progress is being made using the techniques of molecular genetics
to reach the goal of identifying new genes for resistance to Russian
wheat aphid and incorporating them into commercially acceptable wheat
varieties. Specific accomplishments during the past year included
development of experimental lines that combined resistance to the C-
biotype-two with acceptable agronomic performance, and suitable end-
use. One or more of these lines will be developed for seed increase and
further testing in the 2011 State dryland variety trials. Gene
silencing results from the past year indicate that the tested genes
that were highly expressed in resistant plants are both involved in
host plant response to Russian wheat aphid. Manipulation of the gene
that was highly expressed in susceptible plants may provide a means to
develop broad spectrum resistance to Russian wheat aphid. Results from
the water use efficiency studies suggest that some of the selected
synthetic wheat lines may be a useful source of additional variation
for developing drought resistant wheat cultivars.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998, and the
appropriation for fiscal years 1998-2000 was $200,000 per year; for
fiscal year 2001, $249,450; for fiscal year 2002, $320,000; for fiscal
year 2003, $317,920; for fiscal year 2004, $284,313; for fiscal year
2005, $289,664; for fiscal year 2006, $302,940; for fiscal year 2007,
$0; for fiscal year 2008, $228,390; for fiscal year 1990, $214,000; and
for fiscal year 2010, $250,000. A total of $3,056,677 has been
appropriated.
Research is conducted on the campus of Colorado State University,
at Colorado State University research stations, and in a collaborator's
laboratory at Kansas State University and on the farms of cooperators
throughout Colorado. Outreach and extension activities are shared with
scientists and wheat growers in Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, Kansas,
New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma through a Western region Hatch Act
supported multi-State research and extension project.
This project was evaluated during a site visit by senior agency
technical staff in February 1999; the project has been evaluated using
annual progress reports since that time.
seed technology, south dakota
The objective of this grant is to develop and deliver new seed that
will help agricultural producers enhance crop value and farm
profitability.
The seed technology center has been established and is providing
training and developing seed technology and biotechnology methods
needed to support the safe delivery of specific traits to agricultural
producers. Traits currently available in crops include herbicide
tolerance and insect resistance. Progress has been made on assessing
the physiological responses of crops to stress and developing tools
that can be used to assess the impact of stress on current genotypes.
Research in corn has focused on improving our understanding of the
physiological impacts of stress on corn growth and development. In rice
and wheat, research was focused on developing a mechanistic
understanding of seed dormancy. Findings from rice and wheat research
will be used to reduce pre-harvest sprouting and increase seedling
quality. Soybean research was conducted to determine if genes from wild
soybean can be used to improve resistance to biotic and abiotic stress.
A workshop was held to promote dialogue between producers and
scientists concerning the importance of this research. Commodity
representatives including those promoting corn, soybeans, and wheat
were in attendance.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2004, and the
following amounts have been appropriated: in fiscal year 2004,
$313,142; in fiscal year 2005, $354,144; in fiscal year 2006, $356,400;
in fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008, $265,131; in fiscal year
2009, $282,000; and in fiscal year 2010, $350,000. A total of
$1,920,817 has been appropriated.
The research is being conducted at South Dakota State University,
Brookings, South Dakota.
Senior agency technical staff review proposals and accomplishment
reports to ensure technical quality and relevance to needs.
small fruit research, oregon, washington, and idaho
The objective of this grant is to fund studies that would enhance
the profitability and sustainability of the small fruit industry in the
Pacific northwest through research in genetics, pest management, small
fruit processing, production/physiology, and wine grape production.
This grant supports research using genetic material from national
germplasm collections and the discovery of new isolates, which expand
these genetic holdings. Studies supported by this project use advanced
selections in breeding programs and approaches that utilize genetic
engineering. Another industry wide-goal of this program is to identify
new potentially harmful virus disorders in nursery stock and eliminate
them prior to introduction into small fruit production systems. The
selection and development of new small fruit varieties is essential to
maintaining the competitiveness of the United States in the world
market and in maintaining export advantages required for our
international balance of trade.
The initial support for this grant was an appropriation in fiscal
year 1991 for $125,000. The fiscal appropriation for fiscal years 1992
and 1993 was $187,000 each year; fiscal year 1994, $235,000; fiscal
years 1995-1998, $212,000 each year; fiscal years 1999 and 2000,
$300,000 each year; fiscal year 2001, $324,285; fiscal year 2002,
$392,000; fiscal year 2003, $397,400; fiscal year 2004, $354,894;
fiscal year 2005, $421,600; fiscal year 2006, $438,570; fiscal year
2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $326,697; and fiscal year2 2009 and 2010,
$307,000 per year. A total of $5,451,446 has been appropriated since
the project was initiated in 1991.
The research is conducted at 10 research sites across the Pacific
Northwest, managed by Oregon State University, Washington State
University, and the University of Idaho. Research on projects under
this grant is also conducted at several Agricultural Research Service
laboratories and experiment stations in the Pacific Northwest.
Senior agency technical staff conducted an on-site review in
December 2009. In addition, evaluation of this project is conducted
annually based on the annual progress report and discussions with the
principal investigator.
soil-borne disease prevention in irrigated agriculture, new mexico
The objective of this grant is to produce safe and nutritious foods
by developing strategies for prevention of soil-borne diseases in
irrigated agriculture. Research includes focusing on genetic
improvement of cultivars of chile pepper, determining the race
structure of the fungal pathogen Phytophthora capsici, and
understanding the molecular basis of resistance and virulence.
To date, the scientists have developed genetically improved
cultivars and produced seeds that they continue to test for disease
resistance. They will continue this cycle of events until the desired
horticultural and agronomic traits needed by industry and consumers are
acceptable. They have also developed a more reliable and rapid
screening method to hasten the selection for disease resistance
breeding stock. The new method allows them to screen numerous races of
foliar blight in a single plant. Further, this method allows them to
distinguish between resistant and susceptible plants in a 3-day period
which is much faster than with the traditional method. They have
distributed recombinant inbred lines of chile pepper to researchers in
several countries including China, Peru, Brazil and India, in addition
to several States in the United States. They continue gain further
insight and knowledge into the host-pathogen interaction and therefore,
are gaining a foothold on reaching their ultimate goal.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $186,684; for fiscal year 2009,
$176,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $187,000. A total of $549,684 has
been appropriated.
The research is being conducted at New Mexico State University
research facilities.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated. A
new proposal, including a progress report, was submitted, reviewed and
approved for fiscal year 2009 funding.
southern great plains dairy consortium, new mexico
The objective of this grant is to investigate the economic and
environmental impacts of the dairy industry on local economies, air
quality, carbon footprint, and water use in the Southern Great Plains
region.
The formation of multi-disciplinary, university faculty research
teams to address identified issues has been accomplished. Work toward
the determination of the effects of dairies on local economies--air
quality, carbon footprint, and water use--has been implemented by the
multi-disciplinary, university faculty research teams and is currently
underway.
Fiscal year 2009 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $235,000; and in fiscal year 2010,
$350,000. A total of $585,000 has been appropriated.
The work is being carried out at New Mexico State University and on
farms in New Mexico and Texas.
Fiscal year 2009 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant, so NIFA has not yet conducted an evaluation of this
project.
southwest consortium for plant genetics and water resources, new mexico
The objectives of this grant are to understand tolerance to
biological and chemical stresses in plants and the impact of these
stresses on susceptibility of plants to pests and pathogens and on
symbiotic beneficial organisms. An additional objective is to develop
and evaluate genetically transformed plants for better adaptability to
stresses of arid and semi-arid environments and the problems of water
use efficiency and water quality.
Researchers have used chromosome translocation to create bread
wheat lines that can be selected for increased root size and branching.
Many of these selected plants have been shown to exhibit increased
drought tolerance and higher grain yields in the greenhouse, and are
now being moved into field trials. Several families of drought-tolerant
alfalfa have been identified using biomass markers. They have been
successfully field tested and are now being introduced into cultivars
for commercial application. New insight into how plants regulate their
stress genes, including the regulation of saline and heat stress has
been gained in tomato and in the model plant Arabidopsis.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1986 and has
been provided with appropriations of the following amounts: fiscal year
1986, $285,000; fiscal years 1987-1989, $385,000 per year; fiscal year
1990, $380,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $400,000 per year; fiscal year
1994, $376,000; fiscal years 1995-2000, $338,000 per year; fiscal year
2001, $368,188; fiscal year 2002, $392,000; fiscal year 2003, $389,452;
fiscal year 2004, $350,917; fiscal year 2005, $372,992; fiscal year
2006, $388,080; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $288,963; and
fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $271,000 per year. A total of $8,516,592
has been appropriated since fiscal year 1986.
The research teams are formed from researchers at five
participating southwestern institutions: New Mexico State University,
Texas Tech University, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of
Arizona, and the University of California in Riverside.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
The submitting institution conducts a peer review of the proposal prior
to submission. Research funding is awarded to researchers at five
participating institutions through a mini-grant program. Projects are
selected for funding based on a competitive external peer review and a
project committee review. A progress report is submitted for review by
each funded mini grant project prior to the award of second year funds.
An annual symposium is held for researchers to present and discuss
results.
soybean cyst nematode, missouri
The objective of this grant is to develop new management strategies
for managing soybean cyst nematode including research on soybean host
resistance and Soybean cyst nematode variability.
Since 2003, several nematode resistant soybean lines were released,
and many experimental lines with resistance to soybean cyst nematode
and glyphosate herbicide have been evaluated. The pathogen has
continued to become increasingly variable genetically and in virulence,
increasing the need for more locally adapted high-yielding soybean
breeding lines to develop resistant varieties with a broad spectrum of
resistance. Over 500 new resistant soybean lines resulting from this
program were tested in 2008 and many of these were tested again in
2009. Two of the 120 lines screened in 2008 were identified with broad
spectrum resistance to soybean cyst nematode and also have resistance
to other pests of soybean, the reniform nematode, the root knot
nematode and a fungal leaf disease called frogeye leafspot. More lines
with similar pest resistance spectra are continuing in evaluation.
Tolerance to glyphosate herbicide has been incorporated into some of
these new lines which offer great promise for producers. More
fundamental research involves the utilization of new molecular
technologies to identify genes responsible for resistance. Genetic
fingerprinting of soybean lines has identified several multiple genes
for soybean cyst nematode resistance. This team has increased output of
soybean cyst nematode resistant cultivars in recent years through use
of marker assisted selection to screen over 15,000 soybean lines
annually and has developed markers to better identify lines with
resistance to race three of the nematode. As the project has developed,
the objectives have been grouped into two priority research areas,
soybean resistance to SCN and the variability of the pathogen. Under
the resistance priority, the following goals as currently being
pursued, to continue to develop breeding material, to improve the
marker assisted selection used in the breeding programs, to expand the
gene maps for SCN resistance, to identify new sources of SCN
resistance, to better understand the genetics of SCN resistance, and to
educate the public about SCN through the Cooperative Extension Service.
The variability priority area is examining population genetics to
better understand the pathogen and its relationship with the soybean
plant, determine the number of virulence genes in the nematode and
their heritability, to use molecular biology methods to differentiate
SCN variants, and to educate the public about the variability of the
pathogen.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
year 1979, $150,000; fiscal years 1980-1981, $250,000 per year; fiscal
year 1982, $240,000; fiscal years 1983-1985, $300,000 per year; fiscal
years 1986-1989, $285,000 per year; fiscal year 1990, $281,000; fiscal
year 1991, $330,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $359,000; fiscal year
1994, $337,000; fiscal years 1995-1997, $303,000 per year; fiscal year
1998, $450,000; fiscal years 1999-2000, $475,000 per year; fiscal year
2001, 598,680; fiscal year 2002, $686,000; fiscal year 2003, $688,496;
fiscal year 2004, $616,342; fiscal year 2005, $702,336; fiscal year
2006, $793,980; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $591,828; and
fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $556,000 per year. The total amount
appropriated to date is $12,694,662.
This research is being conducted at the Missouri Agriculture
Experiment Station locations and at the University of Missouri.
The last evaluation of this project was an external review in
September 2008. The review indicated satisfaction with processes
followed in administering the grant and the progress made in addressing
this insidious problem in soybean production fields.
soybean research, illinois
The objective of this grant is to use biotechnology to identify and
create improved mechanisms of disease tolerance and resistance to
contribute to the reduction of yield losses from plant diseases.
In the past year, significant progress has been achieved including
the completion of a comparative analysis of soybean defense responsive
genes to provide a defense-specific promoter for high-throughput
disease screens; the development of markers for a novel source of
soybean aphid resistance; combining the primary genes conveying
resistance to soybean cyst nematode in one soybean genotype, providing
broad based soybean cyst nematode resistance; developing a new method
for marker discovery that has detected between 3,500 and 15,000
informative markers for in four tested soybean cultivars; discovering a
physiological pathway that can be exploited for engineering soybean
cyst nematode resistance in soybean; developing an improved serological
test to detect soybean rust spores and developed a way to differentiate
living and dead soybean rust spores; identifying as many as 40 new
potential genes for resistance to soybean rust from a wild relative of
soybean, Glycine tomentella and producing hybrids from Glycine
tomentella and soybean that appear to be resistance to soybean rust;
developing a novel software program, Global Food in 3D, to help policy
makers, analysts, and students understand the changing global demand
for protein and showed that markets for soy products from the United
States are dramatically shifting to the fast growing Asia region.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2002, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 2002 was $800,000; $844,475 in fiscal
year 2003; $755,516 in fiscal year 2004; $955,296 in fiscal year 2005;
$1,065,240 in fiscal year 2006; $0 in fiscal year 2007; $793,407 in
fiscal year 2008; $745,000 per year in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The
total amount appropriated is $6,703,934.
The work is conducted by researchers at the Soybean Disease
Biotechnology Center on the campus of the University of Illinois.
Each proposal is peer reviewed by the submitting institution and
senior agency personnel technically review the research proposal and
provide oversight.
specialty crops, arkansas
The objective of this grant is to assist growers, producers, and
processors in the development of profitable production systems to
provide wholesome, safe, and nutritious specialty crops that promote
human health.
Identification of new value-added products and development of
affordable processing techniques that maintain or enhance their sensory
and nutritional characteristics can enhance the viability and
sustainability of the small and medium-sized farms. Addressing food
safety concerns and optimizing the health-promoting aspects of products
are critical. The work with blueberries can serve as a template for use
with other specialty crops. Other research has demonstrated value for
environmentally friendly, sustainable uses of specialty crop waste.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $74,475; and fiscal year 2009,
$164,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $175,000. A total of $413,475 has
been appropriated.
The research will be conducted at the University of Arkansas.
Senior agency technical staff evaluated the research each year, and
satisfactory progress has been made.
specialty crops, indiana
The objective of this grant is to conduct research on gummy stem
blight, a fungal disease of melons, and to expand off-season production
of vegetable crops employing high-tunnel growth facilities.
This research will contribute to the establishment of a specialty
crops research, teaching, and extension program at the Southwest
Indiana Purdue Agricultural Center. The initial phase involves
assembling the research facilities needed to pursue the research on
fungal diseases of melons and on off-season production of specialty
crops.
A wide variety of horticultural production techniques will be
evaluated with the goal of increasing productivity and maximizing yield
potential. The geographic and climatic conditions in southwest Indiana
make the area ideal for fruit and vegetable production as well as for
greenhouse production of floricultural and nursery crops. This area
fills a production niche between crops grown in the South and those
from colder climates to the north. A well-educated workforce and
effective strategies to combat diseases of the principal crops are
needed to support and expand an already significant contributor to the
economic activity of southern Indiana; melons alone are a $34 million
crop from the region. Because approximately 40 percent of the Nation's
population lives within a 500-mile radius of Vincennes and Evansville,
Indiana, same-day distribution of fresh produce and floricultural crops
is feasible.
Fiscal year 2009 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant. An amount of $235,000 per year was appropriated for
this grant in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The total amount appropriated
is $470,000.
The work is being carried out at Purdue University.
The proposal was subjected to peer review by the submitting
institution. Additionally, senior agency technical staff conducted a
critical review of the proposal prior to awarding the grant.
steep-water quality in pacific northwest
The objectives of this grant are to: (1) determine the impact of
farming practices and systems on soil, water, and air quality; (2)
develop new technologies and increase efficiency of inputs which
improve profitability of conservation farming systems; (3) assess the
profitability of conservation systems; and (4) accelerate grower
evaluation and adaptation of profitable conservation farm systems.
Substantial progress has been made toward meeting the objectives.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991, and the
appropriations for fiscal years 1991-1993 were $980,000 per year; in
fiscal year 1994, $921,000; in fiscal year 1995, $829,000; in fiscal
years 1996-2000, $500,000 per year; in fiscal year 2001, $498,900; in
fiscal year 2002, $588,000; in fiscal year 2003, $665,645; in fiscal
year 2004, $595,466; in fiscal year 2005, $639,840; in fiscal year
2006, $633,600; in fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008, $472,668;
and in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $444,000 per year. A total of
$12,172,119 has been appropriated.
This project is hosted by Washington State University. However, the
research activities are conducted on farmlands across Idaho, Oregon,
and Washington with cooperation from researchers and educators at the
University of Idaho, Oregon State University, and Washington State
University.
The Project Director met with the National Program Leader in the
summer of 2009 as part of a regional water quality program review. The
project leadership team meets every year to evaluate the overall
project and contributing projects. Overall, the project is meeting the
goals and remains on schedule as indicated in their plan of work. A
comprehensive review of project accomplishments is being planned for
2010, and an overall evaluation will be conducted in conjunction with
that review.
sustainable agriculture, california
The objective of the grant is to improve the sustainability of the
food and agriculture system along the Central Coast of California by:
developing economically viable strawberry and vegetable crop management
systems that emphasize crop health, reduce environmental impacts, and
contribute to regional biodiversity conservation; enhancing ecosystem
health in multiple-use watersheds through innovative partnerships;
examining ways to increase participation in the development of
sustainable food systems; and examining social and economic factors
affecting the development of sustainable food systems in communities.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 2000 was $255,000; in fiscal year 2001,
$392,135; in fiscal year 2002, $400,000; in fiscal year 2003, $496,750;
in fiscal year 2004, $444,363; in fiscal year 2005, $514,848; in fiscal
year 2006, $509,850; in fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008,
$380,319; and in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $357,000 per year. The
total appropriation is $4,107,265.
The work is being carried out in the Monterey Bay area of
California by the Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems
at the University of California at Santa Cruz.
Progress reports are submitted annually and are reviewed by the
NIFA scientific staff. The latest review, in June 2009, found the
procedures reasonable and recommended funding.
sustainable agriculture, michigan
The objective of the grant is the development of production ecology
information for use in farm management decisionmaking.
Researchers have discovered methods of compost and gypsum
application that improve quality and yield of sweet corn, learned that
there is a high demand for pasture-raised livestock products, and
developed outreach programs for organic growers. They have also tested
such soil-building techniques as cover crops and low-till weed control
and worked with Michigan farmers to develop packaging and labeling for
their products. Results have been summarized in a variety of research
reports as well as a series of practical manuals for field crops, fruit
crops, pest management, and farming systems.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994 with an
appropriation of $494,000; $445,000 per year in fiscal years 1995
through 2000; $444,021 in fiscal year 2001; $435,000 in fiscal year
2002; $432,173 in fiscal year 2003; $386,705 in fiscal year 2004;
$383,904 in fiscal year 2005; $380,160 in fiscal year 2006; $0 in
fiscal year 2007; $283,005 in fiscal year 2008; and $266,000 per year
in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 bringing total appropriations to
$6,440,968.
This work is being carried out at research stations and other
locations at Michigan State University and on cooperating farms around
the State.
Reports are submitted annually and are reviewed by the NIFA
scientific staff. The most recent review, in June 2009, determined that
the procedures were thoroughly described and scientifically sound.
sustainable agriculture and natural resources, pennsylvania
The objective of this grant is to assist farmers in developing
strategies to address issues related to the production, profitability,
and sustainability of organic and conventional production systems.
A study is being conducted to determine if seeding rates can be
reduced without reducing the harvest yield of grain soybeans. Studies
will continue on commercially available products that claim to reduce
loss of surface applied nitrogen. Investigations will continue into
improved cover cropping in the Eastern United States.
Sustainability of various production systems has been improved. On-
farm Soybean network is being developed for use by the farmers.
The work supported under this grant began in fiscal year 1993. The
appropriation for fiscal year 1993 was $100,000; $94,000 per year in
fiscal years 1994 through 1998; $95,000 per year in fiscal years 1999
and 2000; $99,780 in fiscal year 2001; $123,000 in fiscal year 2002;
$149,025 in fiscal year 2003; $133,209 in fiscal year 2004; $190,464 in
fiscal year 2005; $188,100 in fiscal year 2006; $0 in fiscal year 2007;
$141,999 in fiscal year 2008; $133,000 in fiscal year 2009; and
$142,000 in fiscal year 2010. A total of $2,060,577 has been
appropriated.
Research is being conducted by the Pennsylvania State University on
farms throughout the State of Pennsylvania. Additional work is being
undertaken by county-based or statewide specialists in Cooperative
Extension, Rodale Institute, Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable
Agriculture, Pennsylvania Certified Organic, and farmer commodity
groups.
Annual proposals for funding are peer reviewed for relevance and
scientific merit. The NIFA contact is also in regular contact with the
principal researcher at the key institution to discuss progress towards
meeting project objectives. Agency evaluation of this project has not
been conducted.
sustainable beef supply, montana
The objectives of this grant are: (1) development and delivery of
educational programs aimed at providing research-based information and
meeting beef quality assurance standards; (2) certification of feeder
calves that have met defined beef quality assurance management
protocols; (3) information feedback from the feedlot and packing plant
to the cow-calf producer showing if the feeder calves met industry
requirements for quality, consistency, and red meat yield; (4) age and
source certification of weaned calves for the export market such as
Japan; (5) development and delivery of educational materials associated
with biosecurity of the ranch to prevent disease; and (6) development
of material for an interactive television program on Global Beef
Production.
Research aimed at measuring phenotypic and genetic effects of
reducing feed intake in beef heifers and cows will be measured.
Reducing feed intake without negatively impacting reproduction, calf
weaning weights, and bull fertility is the main focus with measurements
of greenhouse gas--methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide--
production the secondary focus. The hypothesis is that feed intake can
be reduced 15 percent and greenhouse gases can be reduced 17 percent
without affecting productivity. By using county extension agents to
assist with producer training, beef producers are educated on methods
to reduce beef quality defects; age and source verify weaned calves;
and subsequently improve the value of cattle and carcasses. As part of
a regional project, carcass data collected over the past 5 years will
be analyzed to determine if production practices have changed with
regard to carcass quality and yield. The starting point for this
research is accomplished by a series of hands-on courses demonstrating
best management practices. The Montana Stockgrowers Association and
Montana State University will provide beef quality assurance education
throughout the State. Finally, as a component of the educational focus,
a cooperative effort between Montana State University, Montana
Stockgrowers Association, and Montana Grain Growers Association, the
Montana MarketManager Web site will be implemented.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999. The
appropriation for fiscal year 1999 was $500,000; for fiscal year 2000,
$637,500; for fiscal year 2001, $742,363; for fiscal year 2002,
$1,000,000; for fiscal year 2003, $993,500; for fiscal year 2004,
$889,720; for fiscal year 2005, $937,440; for fiscal year 2006,
$974,160; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $725,883; and
for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $682,000 per year. The total amount
appropriated is $8,764,566.
The work is a joint project that is being carried out at Montana
State University in Bozeman and the Montana Stockgrowers Association in
Helena. In addition, various beef cattle ranches in Montana and
cooperating beef processing facilities are located in more than 10
States throughout the Midwest.
NIFA National Program Leaders evaluated this project in June 2009.
The NIFA review found that progress has been made. The goals and
objectives of the project are relevant to the mission of the USDA and
NIFA.
sustainable engineered materials from renewable resources, virginia
The objectives of the grant are to: (1) develop a methodology and a
database for assessing alternative forest management practices
consistent with future demand for wood products; (2) develop
methodology for designing, evaluating, and deploying new composite
products based on principles of materials science; and (3) assess the
economic viability of developing a new wood-based composite products
and alternative forest management practices.
In 2009, Virginia Tech's Sustainable Engineered Materials Institute
provided a hotbed for material innovation through exploration and
creation of new competitive biobased products and materials that can
enter new markets, create economic recovery, and enhance U.S.
competitiveness. One of its research efforts created a natural fiber
that is substantially less susceptible to destruction from natural
sources such as insects and microorganisms. Current estimates show that
utilizing this process to create a natural durable fiber could result
in saving U.S. homeowners over $1 billion annually in preventative and
remedial treatments currently required to repair damage caused by
insects and decay fungi. Engineered wood and fiber products being
created in this research offers the opportunity for dramatic reduction
in the need for petroleum products, less waste of our Nation's natural
resources, superior product performance, and new economic development
opportunities. By utilizing engineered wood and fiber products rather
than solid wood, we could save approximately 50 percent of the U.S.
wood resources for other uses such as biofuels and bioenergy.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2002 with an
appropriation of $400,000; $596,100 for fiscal year 2003; $532,838 for
fiscal year 2004; $603,136 for fiscal year 2005; $693,000 in fiscal
year 2006; $0 in fiscal year 2007; $516,360 in fiscal year 2008; and
$485,000 per year in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. A total of $4,311,434
has been appropriated.
Research is being conducted at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg,
Virginia.
An evaluation on this project is planned for 2010.
sustainable production and processing research for lowbush specialty
crop, maine
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $200,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
swine and other animal waste treatment, north carolina
The objective of this grant is to establish a poultry and livestock
air quality research and education initiative that will foster growth
of research programs in agricultural air quality that provide the basis
for effective outreach and educational programs, locally and
nationally.
A porous windbreak wall and a biofilter for the exhaust air from
the swine facility have been constructed. Twelve environmentally
controlled poultry chambers have been used to measure the effect of
various manure management practices, ventilation systems, and animal
diets on the air emissions from the chambers. The vermicomposting pilot
unit at Lake Wheeler Research Farm revealed that this pilot system
works comparatively better for reducing bacteria fecal coliform,
Escherichia coli, and enterococci than two previously studied
conventional lagoon/sprayfield systems.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 1997 was $215,000; for fiscal year 1998,
$300,000; for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $500,000 per year; for fiscal
year 2001, $498,900; for fiscal year 2002, $489,000; for fiscal year
2003, $491,783; for fiscal year 2004, $440,386; for fiscal year 2005,
$466,240; for fiscal year 2006, $484,110; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for
fiscal year 2008, $372,375; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$349,000 per year. A total of $5,455,794 has been appropriated.
This work is being conducted at North Carolina State University in
Raleigh and with linkages throughout the country.
The NIFA conducted an evaluation of the progress of this work
during 2009. The project has made progress towards meeting the original
goals.
technology for irrigated vegetable production, north carolina
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $500,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
texas obesity research project
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $500,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
tick borne disease prevention, rhode island
The objective of this grant is to develop the predictive model
framework and Geographic Information System tools for communicating
changes in risk and a comprehensive community-based public health
action plan for tick-borne disease prevention.
Accomplishments include annual Rhode Island-wide tick surveillance
data collection for development of a risk model for the northeastern
States; continued progress on evaluating environmental parameters
including direct measurement of relative humidity duration for
refinement of a climate-based model for tick and disease risk;
development of tools for the health information delivery and decision
support system; enhancements to the public Internet Tick Encounter
Resource Center; and interactive workshops with citizens of Rhode
Island to provide practical information on reduction of risks to tick-
borne diseases.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2003 with an
appropriation of $99,350; for fiscal year 2004, $88,475; for fiscal
year 2005, $142,848; for fiscal year 2006, $148,500; for fiscal year
2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $297,900; and for fiscal years 2009 and
2010, $280,000 per year. A total of $1,337,073 has been appropriated.
The research is being performed by the University of Rhode Island
at Kingston and at more than 61 field locations throughout the State.
Senior agency technical staff evaluated this project in August
2009. This year's review found the progress on the stated research
objects is on schedule, and the research is answering the overall
objectives of this grant.
tillage, silviculture, waste management, louisiana
The objective of this grant is improve conservation tillage systems
for Louisiana crops and to address manure issues from dairy and poultry
operations, as well as reduce stream pollution from livestock and
forestry.
Practices to promote greater efficiency of crops within and among
cropping systems and to reduce production costs are being incorporated
to maintain crop productivity with fewer negative effects on the
environment. Continued work on maintaining forest soil fertility and
quality where pine straw is annually removed further supports poultry
litter as superior to inorganic fertilizer. This project is serving as
a foundation for future water quality research in other regions of the
country. Techniques, procedures and expertise learned in the planning
and implementation of this project will be used to guide continuing
research on water quality and waste management in this area. A biomass
gasifier was designed and built at Louisiana State University (LSU). A
non-provisional patent was filed in June 2008. A larger--500 lb/hr--
gasifier unit will be constructed by an investor in early 2010. A novel
technique of producing crude-type oil from wet dairy slurries was also
researched. Tests in 2008 were severely impacted by flooding and winds
of Hurricane Gustav that lowered overall yields by 30 to 50 percent,
and require caution in interpreting recent results.
The work began in fiscal year 1994. The appropriation for fiscal
year 1994 was $235,000; for fiscal years 1995-2000, $212,000 per year;
for fiscal year 2001, $211,534; for fiscal year 2002, $400,000; for
fiscal year 2003, $422,238; for fiscal year 2004, $377,758; for fiscal
year 2005, $424,576; for fiscal year 2006, $495,000; for fiscal year
2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $368,403; for fiscal year 2009,
$188,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $200,000. This sums to $4,594,509.
The work is being conducted on the main campus at Louisiana State
University and at LSU's Experiment Stations at Calhoun, Crowley, Chase,
Winnsboro, St. Joseph, and Washington Parishes.
An on-site review is planned for 2010.
tri-state joint peanut research, alabama
The objective of this grant is to increase peanut yields through
sod-based rotations and conservation tillage cropping systems by
developing and comparing the economic and environmental benefits of
conventional and sod-based farming systems using conservation tillage,
quantifying the positive impact that sod-based rotations have on soil
health, pest reduction and sustainable farm production, and identifying
production practices that result in significant yield increases with
decreased inputs in a sod-based rotation.
Researchers are currently monitoring disease, insect, and nematode
levels in different phases of the sod-based cropping system in Alabama,
Florida and Georgia for peanuts and cotton with Bahia grass. Economic
returns from these systems are being evaluated through the economic
model developed for this system. Soil health factors such as
penetrometer measurements have been taken in the field. Crop growth
parameters and nitrate levels are being monitored in each cropping
system to determine the value of conservation tillage and of perennial
grasses in rotation. Economic models developed thus far through this
research indicate that a 200 acre farm can increase its net profit from
less than $10,000 per year under the present peanut, cotton, cotton
rotation to over $40,000 per year with the bahiagrass rotation. A
reduction in pesticide costs is also projected of over $6,000 on the
farm practicing the rotation. A simple spreadsheet business model is
now available for bahiagrass, cattle, peanuts and cotton rotation.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2002, and the
following amounts have been appropriated: in fiscal year 2002,
$600,000; in fiscal year 2003, $596,100; in fiscal year 2004, $532,838;
in fiscal year 2005, $562,464; in fiscal year 2006, $585,090; in fiscal
year 2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008, $439,899; and in fiscal years 2009
and 2010, $413,000 per year. A total of $4,142,691 has been
appropriated since fiscal year 2002.
The research is being conducted at Auburn University, the
University of Florida, and the University of Georgia.
Senior agency technical staff reviewed the accomplishment reports
submitted for each fiscal year since 2004 and have determined that the
investigators are making progress toward the achievement of their
stated objectives for each proposal. A review of recent progress will
be conducted upon the submission of a progress report to be included in
a new proposal solicited for 2010.
tropical aquaculture, florida
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an appropriation of $300,000. Since this is a new
grant, no information is available regarding the program's research
goals and objectives.
tropical and subtropical research/t star, florida, usvi, puerto rico,
and guam
The objectives of the grants are to: (1) provide research that
maintains and enhances production of established tropical and
subtropical agricultural products; (2) develop agricultural practices
in the tropics and subtropics that are environmentally acceptable
through an agro-ecosystems approach; (3) enhance the role of value-
added agriculture in tropical island ecosystems; (4) expand and
diversify presently unexploited food and fiber products which have
potential for commercial production in tropical and subtropical
regions; (5) expand linkages of tropical and subtropical agriculture to
related industries and economic sectors; (6) develop and deliver user-
friendly decision support packages to help client needs; (7) address
invasive species issues affecting agriculture in the Pacific Basin; and
(8) enhance the linkages of agricultural and food production and
consumption by designing foods and intervention strategies that lead to
healthy and productive citizens in the tropical and sub-tropical
regions.
Participants of T STAR program are the University of Florida, the
University of Puerto Rico and the University of the United States
Virgin Islands. These three institutions make up the T STAR Caribbean
basin, while the Pacific basin is comprised of the University of Hawaii
and the University of Guam. The Administrative group of the Caribbean
basin includes State Agricultural Experiment Station staff from
Florida, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The Administrative group
of T STAR Pacific basin includes State Agricultural Experiment Station
staff from Hawaii and Guam. The Executive Director of the Association
of the Southern Region Agricultural Experiment Station Directors is a
participating non-member of the T STAR Caribbean, while the Executive
Director of the Association of the Western Region Agricultural
Experiment Station Directors is a participating non-member of the T
STAR Pacific basin. The Agricultural Research Service of the United
States Department of Agriculture is also represented in each basin.
Oversight for the T STAR program is provided by two National Program
Leaders in the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Along with
funding, responsibilities for each basin are divided equally between
the Administrative groups.
T STAR participants also collaborate with food and agricultural
scientists throughout the region including all Ministers of Agriculture
in the Caribbean region, French Overseas Departments, the Dutch
Republic and the State of Florida. These relationships are critical in
the battle against pests and diseases that are either affecting and or
predicted to become problematic in the region
In Guam, funds were used to study the genetic structure of cycads,
which are important ecologically but also as ornamentals. The work is
being coordinated on a global scale with cooperators located from
Thailand to New York State.
T STAR scientists have been successfully meeting these goals over
the life of the program. However, new and emerging issues continue to
present new challenges, many times, on an annual or even monthly basis.
The Administrative group, in consultation with their stakeholders,
identifies the most pressing needs of the food and agricultural sectors
for focusing their research efforts. For example, in the Caribbean
basin, funds are being focused on invasive aquatic and terrestrial
invasive pests and diseases of animals and plants. The goal is to
reduce, eliminate and or prevent the entry of organisms, all while
protecting and conserving the natural resources and ecosystem of the
basin. All the funded projects address important local, regional and
national needs, for example, the effect of climate change on the pests
and diseases, improving meat and fish production efficiency, quality of
foods like coffee, and invasive woody plants and their impact on the
ecosystem.
The operation of the Tropical and Subtropical Research program was
transferred from the Agricultural Research Service to the agency in
fiscal year 1983. Funds were appropriated as follows: fiscal years 1983
and 1984, $2,980,000 per year; fiscal year 1985, $3,250,000; fiscal
years 1986-1988, $3,091,000 per year; fiscal year 1989, $3,341,000;
fiscal year 1990, $3,299,000; fiscal years, 1991-1993, $3,320,000 per
year; fiscal year 1994, $3,121,000; fiscal years 1995-1996, $2,809,000
per year; fiscal years 1997-2000, $2,724,000 per year; fiscal year
2001, $3,853,504; fiscal year 2002, $8,000,000; fiscal year 2003,
$8,941,500; fiscal year 2004, $8,946,900; fiscal year 2005, $9,398,208;
for fiscal year 2006, $9,452,520; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year
2008, $7,110,873; and fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $6,677,000 per year.
A total of $123,775,505 has been appropriated.
Research projects submitted to the T STAR Caribbean program for
funding undergoes a thorough peer-review process, which is then subject
to approval by the Administrative group. The Administrative group is
comprised of administrators from the respective institutions in each
basin, and an Agricultural Research Service and an Executive Regional
Research Administrator from that basin. The projects deemed worthy by
the Administrative group are then submitted to the National Institute
of Agriculture, which conducts its own review to determine whether
these projects will be recommended for funding. Each Administrative
group also meets twice per year to review the program and plan ahead
for future endeavors. In addition, the National Program Leader for T
STAR Caribbean is also the National Institute of Agriculture's liaison
to the University of Florida and through this relationship,
communicates frequently with the Administrator of the T STAR program
regarding all related issues and progress. Success of the program is
also tracked through annual and termination reports that are required
by the agency. The National Program Leader is therefore able to
determine impacts, outcomes and outputs resulting from the conduct of
these projects.
virtual plant database enhancement project, missouri
The objective of this grant is to develop the complete database for
plants of Central America by capturing half a million new specimen
records, bar coding and geo-referencing the specimens for analysis, and
providing Web access to these data for scientific and agricultural
research.
Since work on this project was initiated in 2004, a user-friendly
data capture program for the project was developed and deployed. Twenty
new data entry people were trained to interpret and enter data from
herbarium specimens. Data from 356,287 specimens at the Missouri
Botanical Garden and 34,367 specimens in Honduras have been added to
TROPICOS. In 2009, the project exceeded its original estimate of geo-
referencing 500,000 specimens by over 200,000. The final total was
718,354 specimens with new coordinates. The information gathered by the
project was made immediately available on the Web to scientists,
researchers, and the informed public.
This project was begun in fiscal year 2004. In fiscal year 2004,
$671,018 was appropriated; in fiscal year 2005, $705,312; in fiscal
year 2006, $697,950; in fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008,
$625,590; and in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $588,000 per year. A total
of $3,875,870 has been appropriated.
This research is being conducted at the Missouri Botanical Garden.
Senior agency technical staff completed a merit review of this
project in April 2008 and concluded that the objectives of the research
were of value and that the collaborative agreements with various
collection owners and technology are in place. The annual proposals
undergo an internal, institutional review prior to submission to the
agency, where they are again reviewed for merit. Consistent, high-
quality data are being added daily to the database and made available
to researchers world-wide. The Missouri Botanical Garden is making
satisfactory progress.
virus-free wine grape cultivars, washington
The objective of this grant is to use virus-free grape clones to
determine the best cultivars to use in the Pacific Northwest.
Funds have been used to establish, expand, and maintain a
foundation block of virus-free commercial grape cultivars from
worldwide sources. These vines have been used to evaluate growth,
yield, cold hardiness, and fruit and wine quality of grape scions and
rootstocks. Data on the interactions of plant diseases with
environmental effects are also being analyzed.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2005 with an
appropriation of $322,400; for fiscal year 2006, $318,700; for fiscal
year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $237,327; for fiscal year 2009,
$223,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $260,000. A total of $1,361,427 has
been appropriated.
Research is being conducted at the Washington State University
Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center.
Each year, the proposal undergoes a peer review at the recipient
institution and a merit review is conducted by senior agency technical
staff.
viticulture consortium, new york, california, and pennsylvania
The objective of this grant is to maintain or enhance the
competitiveness of the United States viticulture and wine industry in
the global market by doing research on: varietal responses of grapes;
modeling of water requirements; management of diseases and insects,
including Phyloxera; and other cultural aspects of grape production.
Each year, researchers meet with stakeholder advisory boards to
determine research priorities, and these priorities are incorporated
into subsequent request for applications. To date, an effective
competitive research program has been established and is addressing
priorities in the eastern and western regions of the country.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
years 1996 and 1997, $500,000 per year; fiscal year 1998, $800,000;
fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $1,000,000 per year; fiscal year 2001,
$1,496,000; fiscal year 2002, $1,600,000; fiscal year 2003, $1,788,300;
fiscal year 2004, $1,599,507; fiscal year 2005, $1,835,200; fiscal year
2006, $2,079,000; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $1,548,087;
and fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $1,454,000 per year. A total of
$18,654,094 has been appropriated.
Research is conducted in as many as 12 different States in any 1
year. Research funds are distributed through the competitive grants
processes administered by Cornell University and the University of
California. Each year a request for applications is distributed to all
States in which there is a viable grape industry.
In addition to scientific peer review of the competitive grant
process and the relevancy review of the regional guidance committees,
the overall process of the Viticulture Consortium underwent review and
recommended changes in 2006. Annually, senior agency technical staff
participates in the review process used to select research projects.
Funded research is addressing the objectives of the grant.
water conservation, kansas
The objective of this grant is to determine the feasibility of
subsurface drip irrigation and other alternative irrigation systems in
western Kansas to sustain irrigated corn production to support the beef
feedlot industry.
Primary experimental activities were the continuation of field
studies examining the agronomic relationship of crop yield and water
supply as affected by irrigation technology, tillage and residue
management, nitrogen management and plant density for use in evaluating
limited irrigation strategies.
Differences in soil water evaporation between bare soil and residue
treatments were 0.50 to 0.75 mm/day which for seasonal basis might be
55 to 58 mm. The impact of this change in knowledge is that producers
might be able to obtain much as 2.7 Mg/ha additional corn yield.
Tests indicated that gross irrigation savings of 25 to 100 mm per
year are realistic when weather-based irrigation scheduling is
practiced. In addition to the conserved water resource, energy savings
of $10 to $40/acre are possible. Economic comparison of center pivot
sprinklers and subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) indicated that SDI can
be more profitable than sprinklers with good corn yields and current
crop prices provided the system can last at least 20 years.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1993 with an
appropriation of $94,000; $88,000 in fiscal year 1994; $79,000 per year
in fiscal years 1995-2000; $78,826 in fiscal year 2001; $79,000 in
fiscal year 2002; $78,487 in fiscal year 2003; $70,581 in fiscal year
2004; $74,400 in fiscal year 2005; $73,260 in fiscal year 2006; in
fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008, $74,475; in fiscal year
2009, $69,000; and in fiscal year 2010, $500,000. The total funds
appropriated are $1,754,029.
The research is being conducted at Kansas State University. The
field portion of the research is being conducted on Research Centers at
Colby and Garden City, Kansas. Additional work is being carried out in
the Departments of Agronomy and Agricultural Economics of Kansas State
University in Manhattan, Kansas.
The agency scientist met with the principal researcher in October
2008 to discuss the project progress and accomplishments. The
researchers continue to make accomplishments in their research and
dissemination of findings.
water use efficiency and water quality enhancements, georgia
The objective of this grant is to develop and expedite the
implementation of new technologies to improve water use efficiency and
water quality at both a State and watershed scale by determining the
environmental impact of these systems on water quality.
Detailed information on several variable rate irrigation systems
was collected on several Georgia farms, and water quality data on
several sites has been collected with the goal of optimizing yield,
water quality, and field cropping patterns with a minimum of water use.
Research to tie the current and future controller systems to wireless
soil moisture sensors is making good progress, using soil moisture
sensors which transmit data through a mesh network. A second generation
commercial system that makes the nozzle system self-powering and
controlled though a wireless ZigBee link to the controller at the pivot
point is now being evaluated. This second generation system simplifies
installation and maintenance by using water pressure to close the
Bermod valve instead of air. This eliminates the need for air
compressors and air holding tanks on the pivot. Commercial systems,
both first and second generation, have been installed in Georgia,
Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, North Dakota and Alaska with over 50
cooperating growers. These sites show an average water savings of 12 to
16 percent coupled with equal or better production. Additional systems
are now being installed in Nebraska for the 2010 season. Growers in
California and Maryland are likely to order in 2010 or 2011. Work has
also progressed on a solar powered drip irrigation system, particularly
valuable for remote sites. Work continues to simplify the system and to
add additional information including images and temperature and
moisture data and also to add control signals and alerts. Soil moisture
sampling systems, developed by the project team, use a battery powered
watermark sensor connected to a wireless data transmission system and
promises to be significantly cheaper than all systems now commercially
available. Results of a dissertation funded by this project and
increased water quality monitoring have lead to recommendations for
riparian buffers as crucial landscape Best Management Practices for
reducing herbicide runoff from agricultural production on Georgia's
coastal plain. The number of test sites for the variable rate center-
pivot irrigation system was expanded to over 50 last year. The project
is now investigating micro turbines that might be used to power the
system with the goal of coupling the nozzle system and the micro
turbine into a single prototype piece that will be rugged, reliable,
accurate and reasonably priced.
The work supported in this grant began in 2002. The appropriation
for fiscal year 2002 was $480,000; for fiscal year 2003, $536,490; for
fiscal year 2004, $447,345; for fiscal year 2005, $470,208; for fiscal
year 2006, $489,060; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008,
$368,403; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $346,000 per tear. A
total of $3,663,506 has been appropriated.
The development research is carried out in the Tifton laboratory of
the University of Georgia. Testing sites are in several farms in the
area.
The agency conducted a thorough review of the project in fiscal
year 2002. All subsequent proposals related to this project have been
reviewed both internally and by the agency. A second project review was
carried out through a visit to the University of Georgia, reports, and
telephone interviews. A visit from the research team for a review is
tentatively scheduled for 2010. Results from this project have been
reported annually in the USDA Current Research Information System and
in Proceedings of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
Results were also presented at a National Science Foundation workshop,
multi-State committee meetings, and a special symposium on Emerging
technologies for real-time integrated management at the American
Society of Agronomy-Crop Science Society of America-Soil Science
Society of America international annual meetings. Results of this
project have also been reviewed through the project Web site, which can
be found at http://www.nespal.org/vri.html. The review found that work
has been in keeping with the project objectives, that progress is on
schedule, and publication of results is appropriate.
wetland plants, louisiana
The objective of this grant is to develop an economically feasible
approach to controlling coastal wetlands erosion that would use
vegetation to retain threatened areas and to rebuild lost land. To
accomplish this, a system that incorporates agricultural principles
involved in crop production is required. Specifically, a seed-based
system using appropriate planting material is required, and progress
has been rapid in developing this seed-based system.
In 2008, the Louisiana State University AgCenter's Coastal Plants
Program (CPP), which consists of geneticists, ecologists, and other
scientists, developed improved restoration practices and genetically
enhanced plant varieties of ecologically important native coastal
plants. Cost-efficient seed-based sediment restoration was developed by
the CPP and four smooth cordgrass and five sea oats varieties were
developed that have superior performance in natural environments. These
developments and findings will greatly increase the efficiency and
success of restoration projects by providing improved planting material
and methods that effectively stabilize restored coastal sites and
create natural ecosystems. Louisiana's losses of 20,000 to 30,000 acres
per year with long-term consequences on national security, energy
production, navigation, fisheries, wildlife, and other economic and
environmental resources will benefit from this research.
In 2009, genetically different smooth cordgrass and sea oats
genotypes and clones were developed and tested for performance with
traditional plant breeding methodologies by the Louisiana State
University Agricultural Center's Coastal Plants Program. Four clones of
smooth cordgrass and four clones of sea oats have been identified as
superior clones after multiple years of evaluation in natural marsh or
beach environments. These clones will be released to the public for use
in restoration projects in 2010.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999, and the
appropriation for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 was $600,000 per year; for
fiscal year 2001, $598,680; for fiscal year 2002, $587,000; for fiscal
year 2003, $596,100; for fiscal year 2004, $532,838; for fiscal year
2005, $562,464; for fiscal year 2006, $557,370; for fiscal year 2007,
$0; for fiscal year 2008, $415,074; for fiscal year 2009, $188,000; and
for fiscal year 2010, $200,000. A total of $5,437,526 has been
appropriated.
Research is being conducted at the Louisiana Agricultural
Experiment Station at Louisiana State University.
This project was reviewed in August 2003. It was found to be
progressing satisfactorily relative to the achievement of its original
goals.
wheat genetic research, kansas
The objective of this grant is to enhance the genetic diversity
available to wheat breeders nationally and internationally by
collecting, evaluating, maintaining, and distributing germplasm derived
from wild relatives of wheat.
The Wheat Genetics Resource Center fills requests for seed from the
germplasm collection from wheat breeders in the United States and in
other countries. In 2009, this project identified genetic materials for
screening for resistance to a new and threatening wheat stem rust
referred to as Ug-99. Five new sources of resistance were identified
and are now being used in germplasm enhancement programs.
Work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1989.
Appropriations for this project are as follows: fiscal year 1989,
$100,000; fiscal year 1990, $99,000; fiscal year 1991, $149,000; fiscal
years 1992-1993, $159,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $196,000; fiscal
years 1995-1997, 176,000 per year; fiscal years 1998-2000, $261,000 per
year; fiscal year 2001, $260,426; fiscal year 2002, $255,000; fiscal
year 2003, $263,278; fiscal year 2004, $235,602; fiscal year 2005,
$244,032; fiscal year 2006, $340,560; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year
2008, $256,194; fiscal year 2009, $240,000; and fiscal year 2010,
$1,000,000. A total of $5,268,092 has been appropriated.
This research is being conducted at Kansas State University at the
Wheat Genetics Resource Center. The Center also includes collaborative
projects with other departments at Kansas State University, the
Agricultural Research Service, and with other institutions in the
United States.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
The submitting institution conducts a peer review of the proposal prior
to submission. The project was found to successfully address issues in
the winter wheat industry in Kansas and other States. A senior member
of the agency's technical staff conducted a site visit in March 2008.
wildlife/livestock disease research partnership, wyoming
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $300,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
wood utilization research
The objectives of the grant are to: (1) provide science that
addresses the problems associated with harvesting, transporting,
manufacturing, and marketing economical forest products in three
regions, and (2) educate graduate students to be knowledgeable of wood
as a renewable resource.
The program has been expanded to include additional university
research locations--total = 13 universities. These have included new
regions of indigenous forests and specific manufacturing techniques as
well as new research emphases as specified in the Program's 5-Year
Strategic Plan (2006) as follows:
--Domestic and global industrial competitiveness
--Sustainable environmentally acceptable operations and manufacturing
--Efficient use of renewable wood materials for the benefit of
Americans
There are 13 locations. Forest products research centers at
Michigan State University, Mississippi State University, and Oregon
State University were the first centers supported in the program. The
University of Minnesota--Duluth, North Carolina State University, and
the University of Maine were added in fiscal year 1994. In 1999, two
additional units were added: (1) a consortium made up of specific units
at the Universities in Idaho, Montana, and Washington; and (2) the
Forestry Department, University of Tennessee. The University of
Alaska--Sitka was included in the program in fiscal year 2000, and West
Virginia University was added in the program in 2004. Louisiana State
University is the latest addition (2008).
The three original locations have expanded the objectives of their
research as new information became available through ongoing research
and continued responses to the completed studies. The newer programs
have also been continued with new research objectives; some based on
needs from consumers for additional work. The program in Alaska is
working with institutions and organizations in Alaska to define
research priorities. West Virginia University concentrates on the use
of upland hardwoods. All of the programs are working to define
environmentally benign products made of a renewable resource and
procedures that are economically viable.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
year 1985, $3,000,000; fiscal years 1986-1989, $2,852,000 per year;
fiscal year 1990, $2,816,000; fiscal years 1991 and 1992, $2,852,000
per year; fiscal year 1993, $4,153,000; fiscal year 1994, $4,176,000;
fiscal years 1995 and 1996, $3,758,000 per year; fiscal years 1997 and
1998, $3,536,000 per year; fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $5,136,000 per
year; fiscal year 2001, $5,773,271; fiscal year 2002, $5,670,000;
fiscal year 2003, $6,129,895; fiscal year 2004, $6,069,975; fiscal year
2005, $6,234,720; fiscal year 2006, $6,370,650; fiscal year 2007, $0;
fiscal year 2008, $4,840,875; fiscal year 2009, $4,545,000; and fiscal
year 2010, $4,841,000. The total amount appropriated is $106,592,386.
Reviews are conducted when requested by a State institution.
Reviews at Mississippi State University and Oregon State University
were conducted in 2004. Both institutions have successfully achieved
their set objectives. Center directors met in 1996, 1999, 2004, 2005,
2006, 2008 and 2009. Progress reports are reviewed each year. Each
center has its advisory group or research committee to provide
direction and the input of stakeholders into the program.
wool research, montana, texas, and wyoming
The objective of this grant is to improve the efficiency and
profitability of producing and marketing wool, mohair, and cashmere.
Objectives at the three laboratories are continually revised to reflect
the changing research priorities for the wool, mohair, and cashmere
industries and to satisfy consumer demands for products from these
fibers. It is anticipated that 5 years will be required to complete the
current research.
Research conducted at the Texas A&M University station is examining
and contributing to several approaches for making the United States
animal fiber and sheep and goat meat industries more competitive and
more profitable.
The Montana State University station uses the Optical Fiber
Diameter Analyzer OFDA2000 instrument to provide producers an
opportunity to test wool inexpensively and is developing an edge for
marketing their wool clips.
The University of Wyoming effort supports improvement of the United
States sheep industry through identifying and evaluating new
technologies that enhance our abilities to objectively measure the
physical properties of greasy wool and other animal fibers; and through
promoting communication between research organizations, producer
groups, both at the State and national levels, end-user groups, and
regulatory groups.
Grants have been awarded from appropriated funds in the amount of
$150,000 per year for fiscal years 1984-1985; $142,000 per year for
fiscal years 1986-1989; $144,000 for fiscal year 1990; $198,000 for
fiscal year 1991; $250,000 per year for fiscal years 1992-1993;
$235,000 for fiscal year 1994; $212,000 per year for fiscal years 1995-
1997; $300,000 per year for fiscal years 1998-2000; $299,340 for fiscal
year 2001; $294,000 for fiscal year 2002; $292,089 for fiscal year
2003; $268,407 for fiscal year 2004; $297,600 for fiscal year 2005;
$295,020 for fiscal year 2006; $0 for fiscal year 2007; for fiscal year
2008, $219,453; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $206,000 per year.
A total of $5,858,909 has been appropriated.
In 2008, the principal investigators from the three universities
met with the NIFA National Program Leader responsible for the grant
during a multi-State committee meeting where progress and direction of
the grant was discussed. The research encompassed in this grant is a
component of a multi-State research project; therefore, accomplishments
are reported annually to scientific peers and representatives from the
sheep, goat, wool, mohair, and cashmere industries. Each multi-State
research project is periodically peer reviewed to verify
accomplishments and collaborative efforts among the participating
institutions. In addition, research results are presented each year to
the members of the American Sheep Industry Association during its
annual convention.
world food and health initiative, illinois
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $461,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
research federal administration grants
ag-based industrial lubricants research program, iowa
The Ag-Based Industrial Lubricants program was initiated to develop
new non-food uses for soybean crop oil. Eighteen years of research and
development has led to numerous patents or joint patents on soy-based
lubricants, leading to successful commercialization of many soy-based
grease and lubricant products. In 2007, this program transitioned to a
Center of Excellence and became the National Agriculture-Based
Lubricants Center. The research program continues to investigate
improvements in biolubricants manufacturing efficiency using microwave
energy as a replacement for traditional heating methods which cost more
and cause oxidative break-down in vegetable oils. In addition, the
project has conducted initial diesel engine testing to evaluate
biolubricants in the engine crankcase--a direct result of improved
technologies to control oxidative breakdown of vegetable oils through
continuing research in both chemical and genetic modifications of
vegetable oils to achieve unprecedented stability. Research continues
to investigate nano-metals for control of bacteria which cause
premature lubricant failure in machining equipment.
Federal funding for this project began with a 1998 appropriation of
$200,000. Fiscal years 1999 and 2000 appropriations were $250,000 each
year; for fiscal year 2001, $349,230; for fiscal year 2002, $360,000;
for fiscal year 2003, $447,075; for fiscal year 2004, $402,611; for
fiscal year 2005, $522,784; for fiscal year 2006, $543,510; for fiscal
year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $405,144; for fiscal year 2009,
$380,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $405,000. A total of $4,515,434 has
been appropriated.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
agricultural development in the american pacific, hawaii
The Agricultural Development in the American Pacific (ADAP) goals
are to develop human resources and information capacity within the
institutions, to manage more effectively, agricultural programs within
and among the institutions, and to focus available resources on
critical agricultural issues of the Pacific. On-going projects include
animal health surveys, livestock waste management, artificial
insemination demonstration and education, market production information
tracking systems co-developed with ``State'' Departments of
Agriculture, and Web sites that contain relevant research information
supported by ADAP and pacific-based information.
The ADAP Communications, Information and Publications Service
(CIPS) project was created to coordinate and address the information
needs of the ADAP institutions, communities and clientele on a regional
basis. This project helped provide and made accessible appropriate
information and materials that benefit the American Pacific region and
encourage economic and agricultural sustainability. As a result of more
open and immediate access to information, duplication of work in the
region was reduced, leading to more efficient use of fiscal and human
resources. The increased utilization of electronic communication
capabilities greatly reduced travel costs for various meetings,
training, and workshops.
The American Pacific Land-grant institutions and government
agencies want to increase their levels of trained and competent staff
in order to enhance the institution and government services and to
advance local agricultural development or allied fields. One way to
help increase the number of qualified employees is to provide high
school and college students, specifically potential future employees,
and current government or ADAP institution employees, with the
opportunity to compete for educational scholarships. ADAP has developed
programs targeted at different stages of educational development.
The work was funded for 7 years with an annual appropriation of
$650,000 to the former Extension Service. In fiscal year 1994, an
appropriation of $608,000 was made to NIFA to continue the ADAP
program. In fiscal year 1995, the appropriation was $527,000; for
fiscal years 1996 through 2000, $564,000 each year; fiscal year 2001,
$562,759; fiscal year 2002, $552,000; fiscal year 2003, $548,412;
fiscal year 2004, $490,091; fiscal year 2005, $486,080; fiscal year
2006, $481,150; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $372,375;
fiscal year 2009, $349,000; and fiscal year 2010, $400,000. The total
appropriation is $8,196,867.
Work is carried out at American Samoa Community College, College of
Micronesia, College of the Marshall Islands, Palau Community College,
College of Micronesia--Federated State of Micronesia, Northern Marianas
College, University of Guam, and the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
agriculture waste utilization, west virginia
The original goal of this project was to determine the
applicability of anaerobic digestion to convert organic waste materials
to energy in the form of biogas, thereby reducing the amount of organic
matter for disposal. The subsequent goal is to manage the remaining
solids from anaerobic digestion in an environmentally sound manner. A
model was developed that predicts the changes of temperature in a pilot
plant anaerobic digester. An experiment has made excellent progress
using a molecular approach to document microbial diversity in an
anaerobic digester. A long-term experiment was begun in 2008 to
investigate the capacity of thermophilic anaerobic digestion to recover
additional energy from a variety of types of waste biomass including
agricultural residues and ethanol manufacturing wastes. Metagenomics is
a new field that has arisen as a result of technological advancements
to understand how a microbial community functions.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 1998 was $360,000; for fiscal year 1999,
$250,000; for fiscal year 2000, $425,000; for fiscal year 2001,
$494,909; for fiscal year 2002, $600,000; for fiscal year 2003,
$685,515; for fiscal year 2004, $617,336; for fiscal year 2005,
$648,768; for fiscal year 2006, $683,100; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for
fiscal year 2008, $484,584; for fiscal year 2009, $455,000; and for
fiscal year 2010, $500,000. A total of $6,204,212 has been
appropriated.
Research is conducted at West Virginia State College, Institute.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
animal health research and diagnostics, kentucky
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $300,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
animal waste management, oklahoma
The goal of this research is to develop best management practices
for the expanded animal industry that will protect ground water
supplies from pollution of nutrients, salts, and pathogens; maintain
air quality; and minimize odors derived from the swine operation to
include: swine buildings, lagoon, land-application, soil-cropping, and/
or rangeland production system, thus maintaining the quality of life in
the rural sector. Long-term application of swine effluent in no-till
cropping systems resulted in increasing levels of carbon sequestration
and nitrogen in the soil profile following 9 years of an irrigated
corn-wheat production. Reductions in protein content in swine feed has
resulted in significant reductions in ammonia emissions from swine
housing. The project has produced several educational videos for use by
swine producers in Oklahoma and in the adjoining States. These videos
describe how producers can reduce the environmental impact of managing
swine manure to protect soil, water, and air. These videos are
accessible by any producer through the Oklahoma State University Web
site.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998, and the
appropriation for fiscal years 1998-2000 was $250,000 per year; for
fiscal year 2001, $274,395; for fiscal year 2002, $320,000; for fiscal
year 2003, $332,823; for fiscal year 2004, $298,230; for fiscal year
2005, $295,616; for fiscal year 2006, $392,040; for fiscal year 2007,
$0; for fiscal year 2008, $291,942; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$274,000 per year. A total of $3,503,046 has been appropriated for this
project.
Some of the field work has been conducted at The Oklahoma Panhandle
Research and Extension Center located in Goodwell, Oklahoma. Much of
the laboratory analysis work was done at Oklahoma State University. The
diet modification and economic impact studies were conducted at the
swine research facility at Stillwater, Oklahoma.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
applied agriculture and environmental research, california
California State University scientists are studying the air quality
requirements of particulate matter from agriculture, race horse
muscular injuries threatening the horse racing industry, managing
drought on high value crops like pistachios, development of an avian
flu immunization, and reducing crop processing costs and environmental
impacts.
The project developed an eco-friendly lye peeling system with wide
application in fruit and vegetable processing industries. The system
has potential to significantly reduce fresh water use, wastewater
discharge, and contaminant levels in wastewater. Research demonstrated
that allowing weed growth in winter and vegetation removal in mid-
spring using cultivation, prevented vine yield reductions, reduced
production costs, and avoided pre-emergence herbicide use. Results show
that a series of growth implants increased physiological growth and
carcass attributes in Holstein Steers. Completion of the development of
an Intelligent Mechanical Tomato Transplanter has increased the
knowledge base leading to a new awareness that computer controlled
robotic systems can potentially be used for transplanting tomatoes and
similar crops. Genome mapping in lettuce has led to increased shelf
life and nutrient quality. Wine grape quality and value are improved
through abscisic acid treatments. The use of improved water management
allowed nut orchards to survive through long periods of drought
conditions.
The work for this project began in fiscal year 2006 with an
appropriation of $990,000; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year
2008, $737,799; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $693,000 per year.
A total of $3,113,799 has been appropriated.
The research is being carried out at California State at Fresno;
the California State Polytechnic University at San Luis Obispo;
California State University at Pomona; and California State University
at Chico.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
aquaculture, ohio
The goal of the project is to establish a program in Ohio to foster
the development of a statewide aquaculture industry. Research funded
under the Aquaculture, Ohio program has led to: new information from
muscle studies that will be useful in identifying gene products unique
to enhanced muscle growth and development and will allow producers to
develop useful breeding strategies for the production of yellow perch;
the establishment of a marker-assisted breeding program in yellow perch
that should improve growth rate by 15 to 20 percent per generation;
unique protein expression patterns that were correlated with specific
traits that can be used to examine muscle in fishes; sensory evaluation
studies comparing wild versus farm-raised yellow perch that found that
farm-raised yellow perch compares favorably to wild-caught perch;
development of new pond fertilization regimes for yellow perch
production that has led to a 30 percent increase of perch juveniles;
establishment of XY female bluegill population that will allow for the
development of a YY-male broodstock population. Progeny from these
broodstock will be entirely male and are expected to grow 30 to 50
percent faster than mixed-gender population; genetic linkage mapping
and identified sex-specific markers that should provide the basis for
detection of important commercial traits; and that market-sized golden
shiners can be raised in one growing season in Ohio's temperate
climate. Recent accomplishments include but are not limited to: 10
improved lines of yellow perch were developed. These fish showed that
the improved lines grew 28 percent to 54 percent faster than unimproved
fish. Approximately 60,000 of these improved yellow perch fry and
fingerlings were distributed to fish farmers in the State. A second
generation of improved fish was created in 2008. Two mapping families
have been developed and induced to produce second generation families
for quantity trait loci mapping. About 15,000 all-male and 5,000 YY
supermale bluegill populations, which would grow 40 to 50 percent
faster than a mixed-gender population, have been generated for
developing all-male broodstock. The Bowling Green Aquaculture Program
established an algal and zooplankton culture lab and produced 50,000
yellow perch juveniles for grow-out trials with a private cooperator.
The aquaponics variety trials in 2008 were successful in producing
tomatoes, peppers, leaf lettuce, cucumbers, eggplant, as well as chives
and basil. The Bowling Green Aquaculture Program organized a Baitfish
Grower's Alliance and provided a Baitfish Culture manual and technical
assistance to the growers. Largemouth bass and yellow perch were
cultured together to market size in 1 year using indoor recirculating
systems, substantially reducing production costs and traditional grow-
out time by nine months. Methods have been developed to identify gene
products associated with muscle growth due to genetic and nutritional
selection and researchers have developed novel proteomic methodology
combining electrophoretic, image, statistical, and primary protein
sequence techniques to identify muscle proteins and enzymes associated
with environmental impacts on muscle growth and meat quality. The
fundamental findings from these studies demonstrate that muscle growth
in meat animals is accomplished through the increase in those enzymes
that are the gate keepers of the glycolytic pathway.
The appropriation for fiscal year 2002 was $400,000; for fiscal
year 2003, $447,075; for fiscal year 2004, $849,955; for fiscal year
2005, $846,176; for fiscal year 2006, $891,000; for fiscal year 2007,
$0; for fiscal year 2008, $663,324; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$623,000 per year. A total of $5,343,530 has been appropriated.
The research is conducted at The Ohio State University in
collaboration with the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development
Center, the South Centers at Piketon, and the Agricultural Technical
Institute.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
aquaculture research and education center, pennsylvania
The goal of this project is to develop a program in aquaculture
production and processing for urban areas. Research conducted by the
program have: found that NuPro, a commercially available feed
ingredient, can be an effective protein supplement for salmonid feeds;
generated new information on the use of commercially available feed
ingredients for salmonids including a study on four organic acids
citric, fumaric, oxalic, and gluconic. In Atlantic salmon feeding
trials, gluconic acid may be the most promising when used as a feed
preservative and may also contribute to enhance growth. Recent studies
have determined: methods for culturing local freshwater mussel species
described and refined, and several native species of fish were tested
as hosts for the parasitic larvae of the mussels. Tilapia can
effectively utilize phytate phosphorus with supplemental phytase being
added to the diet. Research on organic diets for tilapia indicate that
appropriate feeds can be created to support an organic tilapia
aquaculture program once the final regulation from USDA for organic
standards have been finalized.
This project began in fiscal year 2003. The fiscal year 2003
appropriation was $248,375; for fiscal year 2004, $221,684; for fiscal
year 2005, $220,224; for fiscal year 2006, $217,800; for fiscal year
2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $163,845; for fiscal year 2009,
$154,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $300,000. A total of $1,371,928 has
been appropriated.
Cheyney University of Pennsylvania located in Cheyney, Pennsylvania
is conducting the research.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
best practices in agriculture waste management, california
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $300,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
biobased polymer initiative, kansas
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $750,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
biotechnology research, mississippi
A goal of this research is to develop the capacity of Alcorn State
University to conduct research in the area of plant biotechnology,
train students for careers in biotechnology and biomedical sciences,
and to utilize biotechnology techniques to improve the livelihood and
viability of limited resource farmers in Mississippi and the Southeast.
Another goal is to develop new sweet potato cultivars with disease
tolerance, expanded industrial and food uses, and the potential for
greater economic benefits for farmers. Several transgenic sweet potato
lines have been developed with an anti-microbial peptide against
various fungal pathogens.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000, and the
following amounts have been appropriated: in fiscal year 2000,
$425,000; in fiscal year 2001, $589,700; in fiscal year 2002, $680,000;
in fiscal year 2003, $745,125; in fiscal year 2004, $667,041; in fiscal
year 2005, $661,664; in fiscal year 2006, $680,130; in fiscal year
2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008, $511,395; and in fiscal years 2009 and
2010, $480,000 per year. The total amount appropriated is $5,920,055.
The research is being conducted at Alcorn State University, in
Lorman, Mississippi, and at field locations in Preston and Mound Bayou,
Mississippi.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
cellulosic biomass, south carolina
The objective of this project is to determine which plants produce
the highest energy yield per bushel among sugarcane, sugar-beets, and
switchgrass for the production of bio-butanol. Specific objectives
include: (1) establishment of field station; (2) contrasting organic
versus traditional growth methods of feedstocks; and (3) educating the
public through workshops and multimedia presentations in an effort to
produce certified organic crop producers for bio-butanol feedstocks.
Researchers are establishing the testing greenhouse on newly acquired
land. Seeds of switchgrass, sugar beets, and vegetative cuttings of
sugarcane are being planted and germinated. Students and researchers
are collecting pertinent data on feedstock germination, establishment,
and development.
Fiscal year 2009 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant. In fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $469,000 per year was
appropriated. A total of $938,000 has been appropriated.
The work is being carried out by researchers at Claflin University
and on the Agricultural/Biofuel Feed Stock Research Field Station in
Orangeburg County, South Carolina.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
center for agricultural and rural development, iowa
The objectives of this project are to assess and evaluate various
proposals affecting agricultural trade, provide analytical support to
the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and provide information to
farmers and agribusiness firms on the competitive implications of trade
agreements. Theoretical studies, empirical and descriptive analyses of
policy issues and technical problems pertaining to the Uruguay round of
negotiations were completed and provided to negotiators and the
agribusiness community. Knowledge developed in this phase is now being
used to monitor the effects of the Uruguay Round Agricultural Agreement
(URA).
This grant supports six projects focusing on URA and the World
Trade Organization (WTO) monitoring and implementation problems;
implications of the URA and WTO for Eastern Europe, Baltic, and the
Newly Independent States; development of a model to assess the North
American Free Trade Agreement and its linkages with the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; trade implications of U.S. food and
development aid in developing countries; integration of China into
world agricultural markets; and special projects as requested for the
U.S. Trade Representative's office. Major emphasis is placed on
developing and improving international livestock and grain sector
models.
This research program was initiated in fiscal year 1989. Grants
have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal year 1989,
$750,000; fiscal years 1990 and 1991, $741,000 per year; fiscal years
1992-1993, $750,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $705,000; fiscal year
1995, $612,000; fiscal year 1996, $655,000; fiscal years 1997-2000,
$355,000 per year; fiscal year 2001, $427,058; fiscal year 2002,
$600,000; fiscal year 2003, $670,613; fiscal year 2004, $600,436;
fiscal year 2005, $595,200; fiscal year 2006, $589,050; fiscal year
2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $438,906; and for fiscal years 2009 and
2010, $412,000 per year. A total of $11,869,263 has been appropriated.
The research program is carried out by the Center for Agriculture
and Rural Development at Iowa State University.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
center for food industry excellence, texas
A goal of this research is to construct a mathematical simulation
model based on real-world data that effectively compared E. coli
O157:H7 and Salmonella movement through the farm-to-fork continuum in
U.S. and Mexican beef processing plants. In addition to the development
of the model, researchers will identify drivers of microbial failures
within this model that could be used to critically evaluate and compare
interventions used in the United States and Mexico to optimize their
ability to reduce the microbial failure rate. This data will be used to
develop training modules for producers involved in the farm-to-fork
continuum in the United States and Mexico. Industry workshops on topics
such as HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points), Listeria
Control, Beef 706 and Beef Baccalaureate have been conducted to reach
several targeted audiences including food processors, the media, and
food retailers.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2003, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 2003 was $248,375; $221,684 in fiscal
year 2004; $867,008 in fiscal year 2005; $1,353,330 in fiscal year
2006; $0 in fiscal year 2007; $1,007,895 in fiscal year 2008; and
$946,000 per year in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The total
appropriation was $5,590,292.
Research is being conducted at the Center for Food Industry
Excellence at Texas Tech University Meat Laboratory in Lubbock, Texas.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
center for innovative food technology, ohio
The goal of the program is to create a program that provided
relevant solutions to technically challenging problems as defined by
the industry. More than 64 industry-driven projects have been completed
to date. The Center has encouraged innovation by leveraging private
sector funding to underwrite projects designed to assess the
feasibility of emerging technologies in specific applications, or
traditional non-food technologies in specific food processing
situations. The accomplishments in this last fiscal year include an
evaluation performed at The Ohio State University on the efficiency of
anti-microbial coatings for processing equipment, a demonstration of
chemical thinning technology to increase the yields of processing
vegetables, the establishment of a program to evaluate the technical
and economic feasibility of electron beam processing of vegetables, the
use of silver zeolite antimicrobial packaging for food products, the
development of gluten-free pasta, wraps, and pizza dough, and the
potential use of an organic substance to inhibit the browning of fresh
cut fruits and vegetables.
The work has been supported since fiscal year 1995. The project
received appropriations of $181,000 per year for fiscal years 1995-
1997; $281,000 for fiscal year 1998; $381,000 per year for fiscal years
1999 and 2000; $759,326 for fiscal year 2001; $765,000 for fiscal year
2002; $760,028 for fiscal year 2003; $1,042,811 for fiscal year 2004;
$1,144,768 for fiscal year 2005; $1,133,550 for fiscal year 2006; $0
for fiscal year 2007; $845,043 in fiscal year 2008; and $793,000 per
year in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. A total of $9,622,526 has been
appropriated.
Research is being conducted in the laboratories of the Ohio State
University and at various participating companies in Ohio, Wisconsin,
Texas, Tennessee, Colorado, Indiana, California, and Michigan.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
center for north american studies, texas
The goal of this project is to promote strong agricultural ties
among the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The project is also
designed to help ensure the continued competitiveness of U.S.
agriculture. Current progress is addressing the following:
--Evaluate the trade impacts of alternative trade, macroeconomic,
market, and farm policies in each of the three countries.
--Ongoing throughout the existence of the Center for North American
Studies (CNAS).
--Develop cooperative research programs to investigate priority
issues related to growing North American trade in agricultural
and food products.
--Ongoing throughout the existence of CNAS.
--Develop training programs designed to prepare agricultural and
agribusiness firms for international opportunities and
competition.
--Predominately performed during the spring and summer time period,
but also somewhat ongoing throughout the year.
--Maintain and expand institutional linkages with internationally
recognized agricultural programs in Mexico, Canada, and other
countries important to North American agricultural trade.
--Ongoing throughout the existence of CNAS.
Work supported by this grant which began 1994 are as follows:
fiscal year 1994, $94,000; fiscal year 1995, $81,000; fiscal years
1996-2000, $87,000 each year; fiscal year 2001, $86,809; fiscal year
2002, $200,000; fiscal year 2003, $198,700; fiscal year 2004, $894,690;
fiscal year 2005, $992,000; fiscal year 2006, $990,000; fiscal year
2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $737,799; and for fiscal years 2009 and
2010, $693,000 per year. In total, this research has received
$6,095,998 in appropriations.
The work is being carried out at Texas A&M University through the
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, and in other segments of the
Texas A&M University System. In addition to Texas A&M University, other
involved institutions are Texas Tech University, Louisiana State
University Agricultural Center, and New Mexico State University.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
center for renewable transportation fuel, michigan
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $500,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
centers for dairy and beef excellence, pennsylvania
Please note that the Centers for Dairy and Beef Excellence are two
separate organizations that function independently of one another.
The goal for the Center for Dairy Excellence in Pennsylvania is to
continue to revitalize the dairy industry within the State and
positively impact rural communities while strengthening the local
economy with regard to jobs and income. The Center has made significant
progress toward these goals through the development and successful
implementation of the Dairy Profit Team Program. This program has
become a central part of the decision-making process on progressive
dairy farms in Pennsylvania.
The long-term efficiency goals set forth by the Center for Beef
Excellence include increasing feed efficiency statewide by 10 percent,
increasing cow reproduction by five percent, increasing cow efficiency
by five percent and decreasing calf mortality by five percent. The
Center also plans to increase research funding for beef-related
research by 25 percent statewide.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $74,475; for fiscal year 2009,
$319,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $340,000. The total amount
appropriated is $733,475.
The research is conducted at the Center for Dairy Excellence in
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and on dairy farms throughout the State.
The Center for Beef Excellence is located in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania. A significant proportion of the work is conducted on-farm
throughout the State.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
clemson university veterinary institute, south carolina
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $1,000,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
climate forecasting, florida
The goal of this research is to improve climate forecasting and
crop models to reduce risk for agricultural producers and the crop
insurance industry. This is being accomplished by designing and
developing a climate forecast information component, a State and
region-wide agricultural outlook component, a commodity-based
component; and produce an Agriculture Climate Information and Decision
Support system. Additional research at the Southeast Climate Consortium
includes the integration of weather generators with climate models; the
assessment of agricultural impact through the analysis of historical
crop yields and simulated yield potentials; understanding forestry risk
and its minimization; water quality assessment and policy analysis; and
the development of crop management optimization toolkits and programs
to explore optimal management options under different El Nino-Southern
Oscillation conditions and optimization criteria.
The project accomplishments to date include: annual regional freeze
forecasts; El Nino-Southern Oscillation phase assessment; historic
weather data by county; weather generator; coupled climate-ocean-land
surface-crop modeling: bimonthly wildfire and forest risk forecasts;
crop simulation model; historic yield data by county; assessments of
yield response to climate; county level climate-crop yield forecasts;
and cattle heat stress forecast.
The program has greatly improved its prototype crop yield risk tool
which helps analyze yield potential based on climate forecast and
planting dates. The Web-based system is a Climate-Related Tool for
Agriculture and Natural Resources Management and referred to as
AgroClimate Tools. The Climate Forecast Tool provides monthly climate
forecasts of average precipitation and minimum and maximum temperatures
at the county level; probabilities for these variables to help the
analysis of risk and observed values for the past 5 years. The crop
yield risk tool helps analyze yield potential based on climate forecast
and planting dates. The results are based on crop model simulations and
are only available for a limited number of counties, depending on the
crop selected. Crops under implementation are: peanuts for selected
counties in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida; potato for Suwannee County,
Florida; and Fresh Tomato for South Florida.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2003 with an
appropriation of $894,150; for fiscal year 2004, $3,131,415; for fiscal
year 2005, $3,601,952; for fiscal year 2006, $3,565,980; for fiscal
year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $2,656,275; and for fiscal years
2009 and 2010, $2,494,000 per year. A total of $18,837,772 has been
appropriated.
Research is conducted at Florida State University, University of
Florida, University of Miami, University of Georgia, Auburn University,
and the University of Alabama--Huntsville.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
cotton research, texas
The goal of this project was to provide comprehensive multi-
disciplinary research to improve cotton production in west Texas and
expand the demand for cotton grown in the area. The research has made
improvements in cotton varieties through traditional genetics and
genetic engineering aimed at improving seedling establishment,
increasing photosynthetic efficiency and cotton yields, and developing
resistance to pest and diseases. As a result of this research, many
production areas have seen an improvement in overall yield and improved
fiber length and strength. Cotton economic and marketing research
projects have provided an analysis of feasibility and market impact of
new production technologies, improvement of pricing and market
reporting, understanding market behavior, and factors related to
international competitiveness.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998. The
appropriation for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 was $200,000 per year; for
fiscal year 2000, $170,000; for fiscal year 2001, $498,000; for fiscal
year 2002, $880,000; for fiscal year 2003, $1,182,265; for fiscal year
2004, $2,236,725; for fiscal year 2005, $2,480,000; for fiscal year
2006, $2,475,000; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008,
$1,843,008; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $1,730,000 per year. A
total of $15,624,998 has been appropriated.
The work is conducted in or near Lubbock, Texas, on the Texas Tech
University Campus, Fiber and Biopolymer Research Center, Texas ArgiLife
Research and Extension Center, USDA-ARS Cropping Systems Research Lab,
and on area research and demonstration farms.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
council for agriculture science and technology, iowa
The Council for Agriculture Science and Technology (CAST) is a
nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization composed of scientific societies and
many individual, student, company, nonprofit and associate society
members. The goal of CAST is to compile and communicate objective,
science-based information about agriculture.
During the current grant period, CAST published numerous issue
papers, commentaries, and special publications on a wide variety of
timely topics including Poultry and Ruminant Carcass Disposal Options
for Routine and Catastrophic Mortality; Scientific Assessment of the
Welfare of Dry Sows Kept in Individual Accommodations; Animal
Productivity and Genetic Diversity; Considerations in Biodiesel
Production; Food Safety and Fresh Produce; Fate and Transport of
Pathogens in Swine Manure; and Sustainability of U.S. Soybean
Production. These publications were distributed widely to both
scientific and nonscientific audiences.
This project began in fiscal year 2004 with an appropriation of
$134,203; in fiscal year 2005, $148,800; in fiscal year 2006, $147,510;
in fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008, $112,209; in fiscal year
2009, $105,000; and in fiscal year 2010, $110,000. A total of $757,722
has been appropriated.
This work is being carried out at the Council for Agriculture
Science and Technology in Ames, Iowa.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
data information system--reeis
The objective of the system is to enable users to measure the
impact and effectiveness of research, extension, and education
programs. REEIS is meeting this goal by incrementally incorporating
data from more and more programs and continually expanding the data
available for currently incorporated programs and disseminating
information on current research programs. REEIS now contains over 10
major Data Marts--a subsection of a Data Warehouse--and resources of
information.
In 2008, there was a continuation of enhancing program monitoring
and reporting tools. The Leadership Management Dashboard (LMD) was
developed and released in REEIS as a real time tool integrating
information from multiple databases. The LMD links grant funding
information with program information and provides an integrated view of
how grant funds are allocated and spent by various USDA programs. The
first audience for the LMD was the USDA National Program Leaders. In
2009, additional releases of this enhanced tool were made available to
broader audiences including university partners. Also, data from the
National Information Management and Support System (NIMSS) were
incorporated into the LMD. The REEIS system also incorporated reports
from the new Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act
(AREERA) system which provides for the direct input by States of Plans
of Work and Annual Reports.
Information from the system is provided for the following topics:
current and historical agricultural research efforts; forestry research
efforts; statistics about students, institutions, faculty, and degrees
related to agriculture; partner institution snapshots; food and
nutrition efforts; 4-H programs; information on families at risk;
impact reports; agricultural snapshots of each State and outlying
areas; agriculture-related patents and citations and state
accomplishments and plans of work;
REEIS began in fiscal year 1997 when Congress appropriated $400,000
for planning and design. The subsequent appropriations by fiscal year
are as follows: 1998--$800,000; 1999--$1,000,000; 2000--$2,000,000;
2001--$2,120,325; 2002--$2,078,000; 2003--$2,750,000; 2004--$2,444,492;
2005--$2,424,448; 2006--$2,561,130; 2007--$0; 2008--$2,703,939; and
2009 and 2010--$2,704,000 per year. The total appropriation for fiscal
years 1997 through 2008 is $26,690,334.
This program is conducted at the NIFA headquarters in Washington,
DC.
dietary intervention, ohio
The goals of this research are to determine if freeze-dried berries
can exert a preventive effect on the development of colon cancer in
humans, and to identify dietary components mediating CEACAM1 levels for
the prevention of and therapeutics against obesity, diabetes and
secondary complications.
Ohio State University researchers have completed two clinical
trials that provide evidence that freeze-dried black raspberries could
be protective against colon cancer; one trial in patients diagnosed
with colon cancer and the other in patients with familial adenomatous
polyposis. In addition, biomarker studies in normal and polyp tissues
taken from berry treated familial adenomatous polyposis patients showed
that the berries are capable of demethylating tumor suppressor genes in
rectal polyps taken from these patients.
Researchers at the University of Toledo have reported findings that
show a correlation between reduction in hepatic CEACAM1 and obesity
with insulin resistance; high fat diets reduce hepatic CEACAM1 levels
and impact insulin clearance; and high fat diets cause insulin
resistance via a CEACAM1 dependent gene-dose mechanism. Currently,
researchers are investigating the reduction in hepatic CEACAM1 via a
PPARa-depended pathway as an early mechanism of diet-induced insulin
resistance and the premise that additional proteins are involved in the
progression of frank diabetes.
For The Ohio State University the work supported by this grant
began in fiscal year 2003 with an appropriation of $248,375; for fiscal
year 2004, $894,690; for fiscal year 2005, $1,138,816; for fiscal year
2006, $1,237,500; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008,
$922,497; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $866,000 per year. A
total of $6,173,878 has been appropriated.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
electronic grants administration system
The goal of the program is to enable the agency to advertise,
accept, process, review and award grants and cooperative agreements
electronically. The initial focus on advertising funding opportunities
with electronic applications has been successful. The goal of receiving
applications electronically has also been successful. In 2009, 99
percent of NIFA proposals were received electronically. Significant
progress is being made on electronic review and evaluation of
proposals, and the final elements of awarding grants electronically
remain.
The work completed in fiscal year 2006 allowed the agency to begin
accepting electronic grant applications. In fiscal year 2007, NIFA
expanded the scope of the project to allow the submission of proposals
in an electronic format for all programs.
In fiscal year 2009, NIFA required electronic submission via
Grants.gov for all program areas eliminating paper-based submissions.
Proposals were submitted through Grants.gov and processed by the Agency
through the eGrants system. Over 5,000 applications were received and
successfully processed through the system during this cycle. The
percentages of problem categories were reduced from previous cycles.
Significant improvements were made in components supporting proposal
review and evaluation as well as other management functions that have
led to significant improvement in overall processing efficiency.
This project began in fiscal year 2003 with an appropriation of
$2,125,960; $1,944,460 in fiscal year 2004; $1,928,448 in fiscal year
2005; $2,030,490 in fiscal year 2006; $0 in fiscal year 2007;
$2,135,943 in fiscal year 2008; and $2,136,000 per year in fiscal years
2009 and 2010. A total of $14,437,301 has been appropriated.
This program is conducted at the NIFA headquarters in Washington,
DC, except the Grants USDA project, which is carried out at a USDA
Rural Development facility in St. Louis, Missouri.
ethnobotanicals, maryland
Research at the Appalachian Center for Ethnobotanical Studies is
focusing on the multidisciplinary study and conservation of native
plants.
This research will foster economic growth in the region through the
managed development of the area's natural resources and the development
of new local enterprises that explore the use of regional plants for
health-related purposes. It will also help to document and preserve
Appalachian culture as it relates to wild plant harvesting and herbal
medicine through community outreach and education programs.
Black cohosh is one of the most important medicinal plants in the
Appalachian region. The roots and rhizomes are harvested for commercial
medicinal purposes because they contain bioactive secondary metabolites
or natural products.
A number of natural product phytochemicals from black cohosh have
been investigated to elucidate a principal agent and a mechanism of
action. Early work suggested that black cohosh possessed estrogenic
activity, and though a number of unique cinnamic acid esters and
cycloartane-type triterpene glycosides were discovered, no reproducible
evidence has yet to be reported to support that hypothesis. Subsequent
studies demonstrated convincingly that many of the metabolites show
antioxidant activity, bind serotonin and opiate receptors, inhibit
osteoclastogenesis, and inhibit the growth of human breast and prostate
cancer cells. Recent work identified a serotonin derivative from the
plant that binds with high affinity to a cognate receptor, supporting
an emerging model in which small-molecule agonists produced by black
cohosh stimulate the serotonergic system, which is involved in
thermoregulation, and which in turn could alleviate episodes of hot
flashes during menopause.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $372,375; for fiscal year 2009,
$469,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $550,000. The total amount
appropriated is $1,391,375.
The research will be conducted at Frostburg State University, West
Virginia University, and the University of Maryland Biotechnology
Institute.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
farmland preservation, ohio
The objectives of the Ohio Center for Farmland Policy Innovation
the Center are to: (1) Become an ``action center'' for farmland policy
in Ohio, creating and delivering new information for communities who do
not currently have the professional capacity to manage and balance
growth and change; (2) Consider and test new policy instruments with
communities seeking to retain farmland in Ohio through a Farmland
Protection Partnership program; and (3) Consider ways to strengthen the
economic viability of Ohio farms as a necessary part of farmland
protection. It achieves its mission by conducting research-based
outreach and extension. Current progress is as follows:
Farmland Protection Partnership Program.--The Center conducts
policy experiments with communities that are leaders in farmland
protection in Ohio.
The main purpose of the policy experiments is to develop and convey
information on likely performance land policy options for Ohio
communities, as well as other techniques that should be available, to
those who can use it.
Farmland Preservation Summit.--The Center co-hosts the annual Ohio
Farmland Preservation Summit. This summit is the one opportunity of the
year for farmland protection interests to gather and learn from each
other and invited speakers. According to the national organization,
American Farmland Trust, the summit is the largest statewide meeting of
farmland preservationists across the country. The most recent Farmland
Preservation Summits was held in November 2009. The next one is planned
for the autumn of 2010. These are excellent opportunities to not only
provide outreach on our partnership projects--number one above--but a
time to bring in outside experts that we can access through the
national network of farmland preservation.
State-level Assistance.--Staff of the Center are often called on to
provide advice and expertise to State level efforts. These efforts have
a direct impact on Ohio communities and their opportunities and options
for farmland preservation. A few of the roles that staff is involved
with include the Food Policy Council, Food Systems Assessment task
force, Ohio Department of Agriculture, Office of Farmland Preservation
advisory board, and Ohio Department of Agriculture Specialty Crop Block
Grant Review Committee.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $112,209; for fiscal year 2009,
$105,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $160,000. A total of $377,000 has
been appropriated.
The research is being conducted at the Ohio State University.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
florida biomass to biofuels conversion program, florida
The goal of this project is to optimize the use of waste biomass as
a feedstock for ethanol production. Enzyme cocktails will be made to
utilize a variety of waste biomass including corn stover, rye straw,
wood pulp, switchgrass, sugarcane bagasse, and citrus peel. Three
important enzymes have been expressed in significant quantities.
Because of the enzyme activity observed in plant crude extracts, there
is no need for purification; therefore, further reducing the cost below
current commercial recombinant enzymes. Plant-derived enzyme cocktails
enhanced the hydrolysis of wood and citrus peels, releasing more
fermentable sugars than commercial cocktails.
Fiscal year 2009 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $235,000; and for fiscal year 2010,
$300,000. A total of $535,000 is appropriated.
The work is being carried out at the University of Central Florida.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
greenhouse nurseries, ohio
This goal of this research is to identify and implement strategies
to enhance the economic competitive position of Ohio greenhouse
nurseries, especially those in northwestern Ohio.
Economic impact of the greenhouse industry has been estimated.
Mapping of general industry trends has been completed, and economic
barriers to competitiveness have been identified and strategies have
been developed based upon a cluster-based economic model. This economic
model was implemented in 2005 with the formation of a greenhouse
cluster advisory board with representatives from northwestern Ohio
greenhouse growers, Ohio Floriculture Association, Regional Growth
Partnership, The Ohio State University Extension Office, the
Agricultural Research Service, the University of Toledo, and Bowling
Green State University. This board meets monthly to implement marketing
and branding strategy. The use of controlled release fertilizers is
being researched and implemented to reduce nutrient pollution. During
the last 12 months, the major accomplishment of the grant has been
progress on a sustainable greenhouse cluster in northwest Ohio. A
Maumee Valley Growers cluster developed a positive brand identity. Two
major challenges that have been successfully addressed by Maumee Valley
Growers are the implementation of a coordinated marketing effort
capitalizing on the growers' brand, and the implementation of a group
buying program that will save the northwest Ohio greenhouse industry an
estimated $250,000 in energy, workers compensation, and insurance costs
during the next 12 months. The northwest Ohio natural gas savings
program has been expanded to other parts of the State and southeastern
Michigan and will continue to develop as will a group buying program
for electricity modeled after the highly successful natural gas buying
program. This electricity program will initially focus on 19 northern
Ohio counties. A successful cluster emphasizes collaboration between
the businesses, in this case greenhouses, in a cluster and community
partners. Progress has been made in developing relationships with
community partners since 2005, but efforts to develop long-term,
sustainable, collaborative relationships with community partners will
continue as will the work of nurturing and building on relationships
between participating growers. This cluster strategy has the potential
to be utilized in other areas, strengthening the links between growers
and consumers.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2003, and the
following amounts have been appropriated: in fiscal year 2003,
$149,025; in fiscal year 2004, $712,770; in fiscal year 2005, $726,144;
in fiscal year 2006, $718,740; in fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year
2008, $535,227; in fiscal year 2009, $502,000; and in fiscal year 2010,
$1,380,000. A total of $4,723,906 has been appropriated.
The research is being conducted at selected sites throughout Ohio
and through subcontracts with the University of Toledo, Bowling Green
State University, and Indiana State University.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
high value horticultural crops, virginia
The goal of this grant is to build capacity in the area of
renewable and sustainable resources at the Institute for Advanced
Learning and Research. This effort was conducted in close collaboration
with the Departments of Forestry and Horticulture at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University. Short-term objectives of
this undertaking were to organize and equip the plant tissue culture/
agricultural biotechnology laboratory and solicit sub-licenses for the
production of polyploid orchids, for the production of landscape
ornamentals and other unique, high value horticultural crops, as well
as initiate research on new ornamental and vegetable cultivars.
In fiscal year 2003, the plant tissue culture/agricultural
biotechnology laboratory was designed and equipped. Fast growing clones
of loblolly pines that are to be used in Institute research were
planted at the Reynolds Homestead. In fiscal year 2004, technicians
were hired and participated in in-depth training at Virginia Tech
University, the Georgia Institute of Technology, and North Carolina
State University. A horticulture graduate student was employed to teach
and document protocols for orchid propagation. Three Danville-based
faculty positions were filled in 2005. These included two molecular
breeding faculty and a Virginia plant introduction program coordinator.
New ornamentals and trees developed through the program will be field
tested in collaboration with the Virginia Nursery and Landscape
Association. The Virginia Tech Department of Horticulture and the
Institute was awarded a grant from the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification
and Community Revitalization Commission to establish test sites for
plant introductions. The Virginia Tech Department of Forestry has hired
a new faculty member with expertise in forest tree genetics and
functional genomics, to collaborate with researchers at the Institute.
Collaborative meetings have been held with several potential partners,
both educational and commercial, including North Carolina State
University, CellFor, and HZPC. A new objective is to development and
breeding of novel biofuel crops. Additionally, high value native
ornamental crops are being propagated to replace commonly sold, but
potentially invasive non-native ornamentals.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2003, and the
following amounts have been appropriated: in fiscal year 2003,
$248,375; in fiscal year 2004, $447,345; in fiscal year 2005, $567,424;
in fiscal year 2006, $717,750; in fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year
2008, $535,227; and in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $502,000 per year. A
total of $3,520,121 has been appropriated.
This work is being conducted at the Institute for Advanced Learning
and Research, partnering with the Forestry and Horticulture
Departments, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
international center for good technology development to expand markets,
indiana
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $750,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
mariculture, north carolina
Projects funded under the fiscal year 2009 Mariculture, North
Carolina grant were designed to develop and transfer to commercial
users, safe and effective methods for marine food fish production.
Current research focuses on three candidate species for aquaculture:
southern flounder, Paralichthys lethostigma; black sea bass,
Centropristis striata; and red porgy, Pagrus pagrus. Specific
objectives include: (1) Compare performance of southern flounder and a
southern flounder female by summer flounder male F1 hybrid; (2)
optimize Artemia enrichment protocols for larval southern flounder and
black sea bass using state-of-the-art products; (3) evaluate
substitution limits of alternative proteins such as underutilized plant
and animal by-products as a fish meal replacement in southern flounder
diets under controlled laboratory conditions by replacing menhaden fish
meal with: (a) poultry by-products and fermented poultry by-products;
and (b) menhaden fish meal with dried distillers grain with solubles;
(4) formulate cost-effective diets using a combination of different
alternative protein sources such as soybean meal, poultry by-product
meal, and meat and bone meal, and determine their effects on growth of
black sea bass; and (5) determine the effects of these feeds on the
biochemical composition of fish flesh.
Research conducted under the Mariculture, North Carolina program
has led to information on the effects of temperature, salinity, and
light intensity on embryos and early larval survival of black sea bass;
fatty acid profile studies in southern flounder provided a better
understanding of the biochemical basis of egg quality and requirements
for natural spawning of southern flounder; culture requirements for
larval rearing and grow-out culture studies have demonstrated that
wild-caught black sea bass can be grown indoors from juvenile to
marketable sizes in low-salinity, brackish water; black sea bass will
undergo sexual maturation under artificial conditions within 1 year of
capture; and using only female black sea bass for cost-effective grow-
out indoors. These advances aid the development of microbound diets for
replacing live feeds and the development of more cost-effective rearing
protocols. Captive, wild-caught, red porgy broodstock produced up to
300,000 eggs per day from January through March, 2005. A total of 1,200
day 35 post-hatch juveniles were produced with 2.4 percent survival.
The University of North Carolina at Wilmington is collaborating with
the city of Jacksonville, North Carolina, to retrofit a defunct waste
water treatment plant to install a state-of-the-art, pilot-scale
recirculating aquaculture system for marine finfish. Southern flounder
and black sea bass will be grown by a commercial practitioner to test
economic viability and to integrate research, education, and technology
transfer for these two species. The results of this project have
advanced knowledge of private practitioners which are currently
undertaking startup commercial companies in North Carolina. The
Sturgeon City project has provided a unique opportunity for a
commercial practitioner to produce marine finfish, specifically the
southern flounder and black sea bass, in a state-of-the-art
recirculating aquaculture system, while receiving training. This is an
example of a public-private partnership for sustainable marine finfish
culture development. The outcomes of the Sturgeon City project in
Jacksonville, North Carolina, will be of significant interest to
prospective commercial aquaculturists, government policy makers, and to
researchers and educators.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998. The
appropriation for fiscal year 1998 was $150,000; for fiscal years 1999
and 2000, $250,000 per year; for fiscal year 2001, $324,285; for fiscal
year 2002, $360,000; for fiscal year 2003, $357,660; for fiscal year
2004, $320,100; for fiscal year 2005, $317,440; for fiscal year 2006,
$313,830; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $234,348; and
for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $220,000 per year. A total of
$3,317,663 has been appropriated.
The work is being conducted at the Center for Marine Science
Research at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
medicinal and bioactive crops, texas
The long-term goal of this project is to develop aesculiosides as
novel primary and/or adjuvant therapy for cancers.
To date, over 1,000 species of vascular plants representing 138
families found in Texas have been collected and screened for the
identification of bioactive agents since 1993. Over 600 pure compounds,
including over 100 new compounds, have been isolated from 28 species,
mostly native plants in Texas. Several aesculiosides have shown
promising activity against 60 cell lines from 9 different human cancers
including leukemia, non-small cell lung, colon, central nervous system
(CNS), melanoma, ovarian, renal, prostate, and breast19. Further
investigation indicated that active saponins are highly selective for
tumor cells relative to normal cells.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $267,900; for fiscal year 2009,
$280,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $300,000. A total of $847,900 has
been appropriated.
The research will be conducted at Stephen F. Austin State
University in Nacogdoches, Texas
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
midwest agribusiness trade and information center, iowa
The objective of this project is to continue work by the Midwest
Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center to promote expansion
of foreign trade and investment by small and medium-size midwest
agribusiness firms. Current progress is as follows: Topics for research
to be conducted at Iowa State University include: (1) competitiveness
and marketability of commodity and non-commodity agricultural products;
(2) export opportunities for non-commodity products and methods of
differentiating these products; and (3) emerging issues and trade-
distorting events with significant potential to affect world trade
patterns.
Under subcontract, the Greater Des Moines Partnership will provide
technical assistance and information to agribusinesses, such as
business climate and trade lead information, business contacts of
potential buyers and partners, and other resources that benefit
companies before and during the exporting process. The project
objectives are to: (1) Study the competitiveness and marketability of
commodity and non-commodity agricultural products in international
markets, determine the potential size and value of specific markets,
and evaluate opportunities and constraints faced by U.S. agribusiness
firms conducting business in foreign countries. (2) Evaluate
opportunities for non-commodity products and ways to differentiate
these products, such as process verification, reputation- and location-
based identification, branding, and traceability. (3) Analyze emerging
issues such as trade agreements, trade-distorting events and animal
disease outbreaks and their potential effects on U.S. agricultural
exports and world supply and demand. (4) Disseminate research results
and other relevant information about international business
opportunities to help U.S. agribusiness firms initiate or increase
agricultural exports.
The Greater Des Moines Partnership's objectives and expected
outputs are to: (1) Offer professional consultation to midwest
agribusinesses interested in penetrating international markets through
trainings, one-on-one consultations/assistance, development of
marketing materials and matching up of international delegations with
potential midwest agribusiness partners. (2) Disseminate market
research and information related to agricultural exports. (3) Publish
an online quarterly newsletter to serve the needs of Iowa agribusiness
exporters and create an online database listing Iowa agribusiness
companies wishing to expand their presence in the international
marketplace. (4) Develop expertise in Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ)
provisions for the benefits of midwest exporters. Use two operating
FTZs to serve export-oriented businesses.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $186,684; for fiscal year 2009,
$176,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $187,000. A total of $549,684 has
been appropriated.
The research will be conducted at the Midwest Agribusiness Trade
and Information Center at Iowa State University.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
mississippi valley state university
The goal of this project is to expose students, faculty, staff,
community-leaders, and lay citizens to promote a healthier life style
which will reduce obesity rate, encourage young people to stay in
school, and pursue education beyond high school. This is to be
accomplished through curriculum enhancement and faculty research
support.
The accomplishment report indicates that the goals described in the
proposal are being achieved satisfactorily. The goal of the program is
to enhance the various academic programs at Mississippi Valley State
University.
This program was initiated in fiscal year 1987. Grants have been
awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal year 1987, $750,000;
fiscal year 1988 and 1989, $625,000 per year; fiscal year 1990,
$617,000; fiscal year 1991, $642,000; fiscal years 1992 and 1993,
$668,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $593,000; fiscal year 1995,
$544,000; fiscal years 1996-2000, $583,000 per year; fiscal year 2001,
$645,577; fiscal year 2002, $633,000; fiscal year 2003, $1,043,175;
fiscal year 2004, $933,460; fiscal year 2005, $925,536; fiscal year
2006, $1,418,670; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $1,067,475;
and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $1,002,000 per year. A total of
$17,317,893 has been appropriated.
The work is being carried out at Mississippi Valley State-
University campus and off-campus in Leflore County. Other counties in
Mississippi may also be involved.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
monitoring agricultural sewage sludge application, ohio
The University of Toledo, along with Bowling Green State University
and Central State University, will determine the human health and
environmental impacts associated with the application of sewage sludge
on agricultural fields. Researchers will analyze physical, chemical and
biological impacts of sewage sludge application and the impacts of
pharmaceutical and personal care products, pathogens and nutrients on
soil and water. The project will include epidemiological studies,
pathogens, and residual drugs within the sludge.
Researchers have incorporated data into a geographic information
system (GIS) to create layers of parcel data including roads,
waterways, schools, soil data, biosolids permitted fields, and
biosolids application rates for the project. A health survey was
completed in Wood County that examined whether an association existed
between self-reported health effects and distance from fields where
application of Class B biosolids was permitted. Researchers have also
identified approximately 50 compounds in wastewater influent, effluent,
and biosolids that are classified as antibiotics, anti-depressants,
anti-coagulants, and anti-psychotics. New methods of testing for these
contaminants have developed as a result of the conduct of these studies
and have been published in national scientific journals.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2004 with an
appropriation of $1,073,628; for fiscal year 2005, $1,276,704; for
fiscal year 2006, $1,274,130; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year
2008, 893,700; for fiscal year 2009, $839,000; and for fiscal year
2010, $500,000. A total of $5,857,162 has been appropriated.
Research is being conducted at the University of Toledo; Bowling
Green State University; and at field locations in Lucas and Green
counties as appropriate.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
ne center for invasive plants, connecticut, vermont, and maine
The goal of this project is to develop a multi-State,
interdisciplinary research program to address the problems caused by
invasive species and to develop methods for sterile, non-invasive
cultivars. There have been a number of achievements including:
The development of methods in the creation of non-invasive euonymus
and Japanese barberry plants as a first step in developing sterile,
non-invasive cultivars in the next 5 years.
Predictive models to predict future spread of invasive plants in
the New England region.
The analysis of economic impacts of invasive plants in New England
as useful information to policy makers, nursery industry and scientific
community.
Development of outreach education activities to make the public
aware of the problems of invasive plants and the importance of adopting
native, non-invasive plants for ornamental purposes.
Sponsoring an international symposium August 10-14, 2009, entitled
``Invasive Plants in the Northeast of Asia and America: Trading
Problems, Trading Solutions,'' that brought together experts of from
the United States, China, Japan, Korea, and eastern Russian for a week
of presentations, field trips, and workshops dealing with the ecology
of invasives, biotechnology and horticultural approaches to control,
and regulatory hurdles and opportunities. Over 80 people attended the
conference, parts of which were broadcast by the Connecticut Public
Broadcasting Network. Agency representatives--USDA and the National
Science Foundation; Chinese Forestry--attended and contributed to
discussions of potential future joint research activities.
There also have been some scientific publications including:
``Detecting the influence of ornamental Berberis thunbergii var.
atropurpurea in invasive populations of Berberis thunbergii--
Berberidaceae--using Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism--AFLP''
published in American J. Botany 95(6):1-7; ``AFLP identification of
Berberis thunbergii cultivars, inter-specific hybrids, and their
parental species'' published in J. Horticultural Science &
Biotechnology 83(1):55-63.
The work under this project began in fiscal year 2006 with an
appropriation of $420,750; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year
2008, $313,788; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $295,000 per year.
A total of $1,324,538 has been appropriated.
Research is being conducted at the University of Connecticut, the
University of Vermont, and the University of Maine.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
nutrition research, new york
The goal of this research is to evaluate City Harvest's work in the
Melrose neighborhood-in-the South Bronx in order to increase access to
high quality fresh produce and other nutrient-dense foods; to increase
awareness as to the causes and effects of nutrition-related diseases
while providing the information and tools necessary to enable residents
to improve their dietary health; and to measure the change in dietary
behavior exhibited by clients assessing these services.
City Harvest helps feed 260,000 New Yorkers each week by rescuing
high-quality surplus food and distributing to a network of 600 soup
kitchens, food pantries and other community food programs. This program
provides immediate hunger relief and helps New Yorkers gain access to
affordable, local, nutritious food, with the goal of creating sustained
long-term food security. City Harvest has been developing and testing
measurement tools for the collection of data from users of the Melrose
Mobile Market on fresh produce access. In addition, nutrition education
courses on healthy planning, shopping and cooking for families have
been offered in 6- or 8-week series at strategic locations within the
community.
Fiscal year 2009 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $188,000 under the Special Research
Grants. In fiscal year 2010, this grant was moved to the Research
Federal Administration Grants with an appropriation of $188,000. A
total of $376,000 has been appropriated.
The work is being carried out by City Harvest, New York City and
Cornell University Cooperative Extension, New York City.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
nutrition and diet research, california
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $925,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
pasteurization of shell eggs, michigan
The goal of this project is the commercialization of this
innovative and patented process that addresses the potential food
safety problem of microbial contamination of eggs and the possible
transfer of pathogenic bacteria to humans. Research on this microwave
and heating process is progressing toward a commercial product. Work is
being conducted in collaboration with government, industry, and
university personnel.
Grants have supported this research grant beginning in fiscal year
2003. The appropriation for fiscal year 2003 was $248,375; for fiscal
year 2004, $1,093,510; for fiscal year 2005, $1,237,024; for fiscal
year 2006, $1,336,500; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008,
$995,979; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $935,000 per year. A
total of $6,781,388 has been appropriated to this time.
The Michigan Research Institute facility is the research site,
which is coordinated with industry or university sub-contractors.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
pm-10 study, washington
The PM-10 study object is to address the effects of emissions of
PM-10 and PM-2.5-sized particulates, or dust, from agricultural land on
air quality and development of control strategies to (1) develop a
geographic information system (GIS) database for simulating wind
erosion and transport of fugitive dust; (2) quantify and predict wind
erosion; (3) create a PM emission inventory; (4) develop PM dispersion
models; (5) develop alternate tillage and cropping systems to control
PM emissions; (6) document changes in farming practices that have led
to reduced emissions; (7) identify sustainable farming practices that
control erosion; and (8) help farmers adopt best management practices.
The project has developed an undercutter tillage tool that has
proven effective in reducing erosion. Scientists have reported a 50
percent reduction in dust using the undercutter compared to
conventional tillage. The USDA Wind Erosion Prediction System (WEPS)
has recently been tested and improved for the Columbia Basin in
addition to GIS databases that will drive atmospheric and global
circulation models in the region. On-going work will attempt to couple
WEPS with these advanced circulation models to predict regional wind
erosion events.
The project is in its fifth year of cropping system studies to
evaluate conservation tillage against traditional wheat-fallow systems
for controlling wind erosion. One more cropping season is needed to
evaluate all of their treatments.
The project has documented increases in soil organic carbon from
using no-till versus conventional tillage practices. The chemical
signatures in organic carbon are being utilized to predict sources of
wind-blown sediment. In addition to carbon, the impact of these
practices on soil quality is being documented.
Economic analysis of various farming practices are being performed
to document which practices are the most cost-effective for producers
in controlling erosion. For example, the economic analysis showed that
the undercutter tillage method was profitable, and 50 growers have
adopted the practice through a cost-share program with Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
The project is transferring direct-seeding technologies to
producers through workshops and on-farm demonstrations.
The work supported by this grant began in March 1994 at the
University of California--Davis and at Washington State University. The
appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $940,000; for fiscal year 1995,
$815,000; for fiscal years 1996 through 2000, $873,000 per year; for
fiscal year 2001, $435,041; for fiscal year 2002, $426,000; for fiscal
year 2003, $435,153; for fiscal year 2004, $389,687; for fiscal year
2005, $386,880; for fiscal year 2006, $383,130; for fiscal year 2007,
$0; for fiscal year 2008, $284,991; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
$268,000 per year. California has not received funding under this grant
since fiscal year 2000 and has had its own funding stream since 2002. A
total of $9,396,882 has been appropriated.
Scientists at Washington State University are leading the efforts,
but additional work is being done at the Agricultural Research
Service's laboratory in Pullman, the University of Idaho, and Oregon
State University through subcontracts.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
polymer research, kansas
The goals of the project are the development of new monomers and
polymers based on vegetable and crop oils and the study of the effects
of structure on the properties of novel polymers. Various processing
methods will be examined. The physical and chemical properties of the
new polymers will be systematically characterized.
Five specific tasks have been completed to date. They include
preparation of pure polyricinoleic acid methyl esters by
transesterification of castor oil and distillation; preparation of
hydroxyl acid methyl ester with secondary hydroxyl groups from oleic
acid by epoxidation and hydrogenation; preparation of polyester diols
of molecular weight 700-4000 transesterification of methylricioleate
and diethylene glycol; preparation of polyurethanes from diols having
soft segment concentration from 40-80 percent; and ozonolysis of
vegetable oils and preparation of methyl esters of hydroxynonanoic
acid. A new class of seven elastomers with well-defined structures and
excellent properties was created suitable for medical and athletic
applications. The new elastomers varied in hardness from soft rubbers
having 70 percent of bio-based content to hard rubber with 50 or 40
percent bio content. The original goal is nearly its completion.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $1,117,125; for fiscal year 2009,
$1,284,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $2,000,000. A total of $4,401,125
has been appropriated.
The research will be conducted at the Pittsburg State University in
Kansas.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
rural agriculture small business development program
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $500,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
rural systems, mississippi
The goal of the National Center for Bio-defense Communications for
Rural America (Center) is to bring to bear Internet-based technologies
for early detection of significant human and animal health events and
to issue authorized, secure, non-public, bio-terror alerts and
notifications to authorized and appropriate policymakers, healthcare,
and first-responder recipients.
The Center is proposing to develop and implement more projects
designed to address several problems that became evident as a result of
Hurricane Katrina. The Center has just completed a major revision of
the State Vet System. This revision has materially enhanced
performance, removed unnecessary steps and key strokes, streamlined the
user interface, and brought several disconnected tasks into the main
body of the application. In partnership with the Mississippi Emergency
Management Agency, the Mississippi State Veterinarian's Office and the
Mississippi Department of Human Services, the Center has developed an
integrated online Mississippi Emergency Evacuation Shelter System. The
Center has begun work on a new goal to design, create, and host a
Mississippi, rural-centric Web portal to personalize, deliver, and
track the review of updated and newly available training materials on
photogrammetric and geospatial analysis.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2003 and the
appropriation for fiscal year 2003 was $347,725; for fiscal year 2004
is $311,153; for fiscal year 2005, $308,512; for fiscal year 2006,
$304,920; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $229,383; and
for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $215,000 per year. A total of
$1,931,693 has been appropriated.
The program is conducted at the Institute of Epidemiology and
Health Services Research at the e-Center of Jackson State University,
and the Jackson Medical Mall, Jackson, Mississippi.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
shrimp aquaculture, arizona, hawaii, louisiana, massachusetts,
mississippi, south carolina, and texas
The goal of this program is to increase domestic production of
marine shrimp through aquaculture. Research funded through past awards
to the program has led to: development of a computerized database for
the shrimp breeding program; providing improved seedstock to industry
that have been developed from the breeding program; improved shrimp
disease diagnostics, prevention, and treatment protocols; advanced
marine shrimp farming technologies, products, and services by providing
high-quality, specific pathogen-free, and genetically improved shrimp
stocks; environmentally and economically viable marine shrimp
production systems that produce a quality product at competitive
prices; improved biosecurity protocols that will provide protection for
cultured and wild shrimp stocks; improving shrimp culture systems that
reduce effluents; identifying and developing diagnostic protocols for
many shrimp diseases that have affected world shrimp production;
developing and using bioeconomic models to guide research and
development efforts for the super-intensive production systems
developed under this program; developing and evaluating disease-
resistant lines of shrimp by selective breeding; elucidating molecular
mechanisms of disease resistance; developing monoclonal antibodies that
have been licensed for rapid field diagnosis of a common bacterial
disease in shrimp; developing new shrimp feeds that have lower
inclusion rates of fish meal and fish oil; establishing a
bioinformatics database with search capabilities to identify genes
associated with traits of economic importance; training students in
shrimp disease diagnostics and prevention; and improving feeds and
feeding strategies using domestically produced grains that reduce our
dependence on marine fish-derived protein and oils.
Recent accomplishments include but are not limited to: production
of approximately 50 shrimp families which are resistant to Taura
Syndrome Virus and exhibit rapid growth and high survival at super-
intensive stocking densities; three new diseases appeared on the list
of Crustacean Diseases in the 2008 Aquatic Code of the Office
International des Epizooties as a direct result of this work. These
were Necrotizing Hepatopancreatitis, Hepatopancreatic Parvovirus
Disease, and Mourilyan Virus Disease. Following review of the global
status of these diseases by the Crustacean ad hoc group at the
University of Arizona, only Necrotizing Hepatopancreatitis was
recommended for full listing by the Office International des
Epizooties. The draft Code chapters on Hepatopancreatic Parvovirus
Disease and Mourilyan Virus Disease were withdrawn in 2008 by the
Crustacean ad hoc group as diseases recommended for listing by the
Office International des Epizooties. The University of Arizona offers
training in shrimp pathology and shrimp disease diagnostic methods to
members of the Consortium, to United States and foreign governments,
and to the domestic and foreign shrimp culture industries. The
University of Arizona's Shrimp Pathology Short Course has been
operational since 1989 as a mostly self-supporting, annually offered
course, and is one of the University of Arizona's functions in the
Consortium.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
year 1985, $1,050,000; fiscal year 1986, $1,236,000; fiscal year 1987,
$2,026,000; fiscal year 1988, $2,236,000; fiscal year 1989, $2,736,000;
fiscal year 1990, $3,195,000; fiscal year 1991, $3,365,000; fiscal
years 1992-1993, $3,500,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $3,290,000;
fiscal year 1995, $2,852,000; fiscal year 1996, $3,054,000; fiscal
years 1997-2000, $3,354,000 per year; fiscal year 2001, $4,167,811;
fiscal year 2002, $4,214,000; fiscal year 2003, $4,186,609; fiscal year
2004, $3,745,769; fiscal year 2005, $3,941,216; fiscal year 2006,
$4,158,000; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008, $3,097,167; and for
fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $2,908,000 per year. A total of $78,782,572
has been appropriated.
The research is conducted through the United States Marine Shrimp
Farming Consortium. Individual projects are administered and conducted
by the University of Southern Mississippi's Gulf Coast Research
Laboratory in Ocean Springs, Mississippi and by the Oceanic Institute
in Hawaii. Other Consortium members conducting the research include:
Tufts University in Massachusetts, the Waddell Mariculture Center in
South Carolina, the Texas A&M Agricultural Experiment Station, the
University of Arizona, and Nicholls State University in Louisiana.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
sustainable agriculture freshwater conservation, texas
The goal of this research is to develop a sustainable water use
model for a part of the Rio Grande basin through the identification and
analysis of constraints to the sustainable use of the trans-boundary
Rio Grande water system. With agricultural water use being a major
focus, other relevant project elements include: characterization,
quantification, and modeling of basin surface and groundwater
resources; water supply-demand issues throughout the Rio Grande
drainage basin; human health-related water pollution issues;
agricultural water use practices; identification and characterization
of biological integrity and aquatic habitats as well as wastewater
characterization and treatment options to extend/renew available
supplies. The project seeks to identify the root causes and obstacles
to sustainable use of limited resources and explore the socioeconomic
potential of integrated solutions that are acceptable to stakeholders
throughout the Rio Grande Basin. A focal point of the research is the
identification of organizations and agencies doing water-related
research in the three U.S. States and five Mexican States comprising
the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo drainage basin. The development of a
comprehensive and easily accessible Web-based clearinghouse of
information will enable policy-makers, stakeholders, and the public to
locate critical information throughout the Rio Grande and is intended
to facilitate informed decisionmaking. A Trans-boundary Diagnostic
Analysis Framework (TDA) has been developed specifically for the Rio
Grande drainage basin and is actively used as the outline for
identifying objectives and integrating the results of research
conducted by researchers. The TDA is intended to be a resource in the
subsequent development of a management action plan for Rio Grande Basin
resources.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2004, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 2004 was $1,789,380; for fiscal year
2005, $1,805,440; for fiscal year 2006, $1,831,500; for fiscal year
2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $1,527,234; and for fiscal years 2009
and 2010, $1,434,000 per year. A total of $9,821,554 has been
appropriated.
Much of this work is being conducted in the area of the Big Bend
National Park on the Rio Grande River. The institution which provides
leadership of the project is Sul Ross State University in Alpine,
Texas. Subcontracts on the project also exist for Texas State
University at San Marcos.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
university of wisconsin--stevens point institute for sustainable
technologies
The goal of the project is to develop a self-sustaining center that
will provide education, training, and research support for government
and industry in Wisconsin. The Research Division of the institute will
focus on establishing a biofuels research lab to support new
alternative fuel development; a statewide biofuels scientific and
economic conference is under development to provide practical
information to the citizens of Wisconsin; the University of Wisconsin,
Stevens Point Paper Science and Engineering Department is working with
the institute on developing sustainable technologies for the paper
industry; and researchers are collaborating with others in education
and laboratory sciences to develop criteria for sustainability. A draft
curriculum for an alternative energy minor has been developed and will
process through university governance spring semester.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $1,843,008; for fiscal year 2009,
$1,408,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $1,400,000. A total of $4,651,408
has been appropriated.
The research will be conducted at the University of Wisconsin--
Stevens Point.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
viral hemorrhagic septicemia, michigan
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $150,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's research goals and
objectives.
viral hemorrhagic septicemia, ohio
The goal of the project is to investigate the emerging Viral
Hemorrhagic Septicemia disease outbreaks in Lake Erie and in the Great
Lakes region by developing a molecular genetic test to enhance the
rapid and cost-effective detection of the virus and to map the
distribution of VHS in yellow perch, walleye, smallmouth bass, and
other Great Lakes fish populations. Results will be compared to the
cell culture method, and results are currently being used as a
confirmatory test for VHS detection to determine sensitivity,
reliability, and accuracy. A positive outcome from this effort will
result in a less-expensive and more-sensitive VHS test kit to be placed
on the market providing time-efficient testing for aquaculture
facilities and lake managers.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $223,425; for fiscal year 2009,
$209,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $500,000. A total of $932,425 has
been appropriated.
The research is being conducted at the University of Toledo in
Ohio.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
vitis gene discovery, missouri
The original goal of this research was to identify powdery mildew
responsive genes in healthy and infected grapes and to obtain complete
clonal DNA sequences of these genes as expressed in both berries and
leaves.
Molecular genetics will be used to elucidate resistance to powdery
mildew and other fungal diseases in Vitis aestivalis, a grape species
that is native to North America. An efficient gene silencing strategy
will be developed. In addition, research will determine grape
components that are beneficial to human health with the goal of
increasing the content of those components in grapes.
The research began in 2004. The amount appropriated for fiscal year
2004 was $357,876; in fiscal year 2005, $603,136; in fiscal year 2006,
$601,920; in fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008, $448,836; and
in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $422,000 per year. A total of $2,855,768
has been appropriated to date.
The research is being conducted by the Missouri Agricultural
Experiment Station.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
water pollutants, west virginia
This project goal is aimed at characterizing the potential for
bacterial contamination of water in West Virginia by providing a
comprehensive database of bacteria against which samples can be
compared to determine sources of E. coli contamination in waters. The
database continues to grow as samples are acquired from surrounding
States. Recent work in this project focuses on improving methods for
detecting pathogens and using these detection methods to determine the
potential health hazard posed by bacteria.
The project is being carried out at Marshall University in West
Virginia. Marshall University has one of the Nation's leading forensic
laboratories. As the project has developed, water samples from a
broader geographic region have been included in the analyses. These
additional samples make the analyses more comprehensive in
characterizing bacterial contamination.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2002, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 2002 was $206,000; for fiscal year 2003,
$596,100; for fiscal year 2004, $536,814; for fiscal year 2005,
$564,448; for fiscal year 2006, $594,000; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for
fiscal year 2008, $410,109; for fiscal year 2009, $385,000; and for
fiscal year 2010, $500,000. A total of $3,792,471 has been
appropriated.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
extension federal administration grants
agriculture in the classroom
The project supports State- and regional-level projects that
promote and develop agricultural literacy for the Nation's students and
teachers at the pre-K through secondary levels, by integrating
agriculture into the curriculum currently taught in public and private
schools and to those homeschooled. Funds also support the operating
costs of the national office, including staff salaries and staff travel
for AITC technical assistance workshops, community outreach, and
stakeholder meetings.
AITC encourages pre-K to 12th grade educators to adopt science-
based themes which are an outgrowth of recent scientific advances that
address USDA priorities and advance science-based knowledge in our
Nation's classroom. Such advances prepare students who will be better
able to meet future U.S. manpower needs in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics fields.
On the national level, the AITC program supports a national Web
site, a national resource directory, and an annual national conference.
Each of these entities provides high-quality educational and learning
materials: (1) Teacher resources on the AITC Web site include lesson
plans aligned to State and/or national standards. The Web site also
offers student information that includes virtual field trips, career
options, agriculture and food facts, and State agricultural profiles;
(2) The AITC National Resource Directory is an online database which
lists hundreds of educational materials about agriculture. It was
designed to help educators locate high-quality resources about
agriculture for a pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade youth audience;
(3) The national conference allows teachers from around the world to
come together to learn about agriculture education through teacher
training sessions, workshops, and experiential learning events. It is
also an opportunity to share ideas and learn of others' experiences in
using agriculture as teaching tool.
The total amount appropriated to Agriculture in the Classroom since
its inception in 1981 is $8,081,750. Appropriations are as follows:
fiscal years 2010 and 2009, $553,000 per year; fiscal year 2008,
$553,101; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2006, $856,350; fiscal year
2005, $730,112; fiscal year 2004, $622,307; fiscal year 2003, $700,000;
fiscal year 2002, $600,000; fiscal year 2001, $452,000; fiscal year
2000 through 1997, $208,000 annually; fiscal year 1996, $204,880;
fiscal year 1995, $208,000; fiscal year 1994, $185,000; fiscal year
1993 and 1992, $208,000 annually; fiscal year 1991, $170,000; fiscal
year 1990, $135,000; fiscal year 1989, $87,000; fiscal year 1988 and
1987 $74,000 per year; and fiscal year 1986, $76,000.
AITC is administered through program staff in the Higher Education
Programs unit in NIFA. The USDA's national staff consists of a national
program leader, a program specialist, and a program assistant. Each
State organization operates their programs independently and according
to their individual needs. State AITC programs employs full and/or
part-time staff or relies on volunteers to carry out its mission. The
national program staff works collaboratively with the Consortium of
State Agriculture in the Classroom Programs to maintain an active and
national role in promoting agricultural literacy.
childhood farm safety, iowa
The objective of the project is to identify the strengths and
weaknesses of delivering farm safety and health messages through the
Farm Safety 4 Just Kids, FS4JK, organization by gathering information,
conducting focus group sessions, and identifying knowledge, attitude,
and behavioral changes among previous participants. Each of the 10
randomly selected FS4JK Chapter focus groups was facilitated by a local
leader to identify their unique strengths, weaknesses, ways to address
each, and strategies to implement change. Five strengths and four
weaknesses were identified from the chapter telephone interviews
completed in the fall of 2008. The strengths included community
support, youth/peer involvement, strong activities, member attributes,
and business partnerships. The four weaknesses included no/few members,
funding, time, and awareness/community support/newness. Additional SWOT
(Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analyses are being
conducted with additional chapters.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2008 with an
appropriation of $74,475; for fiscal year 2009, $69,000; and for fiscal
year 2010, $75,000. A total of $218,475 has been appropriated.
Work is being conducted at the Farm Safety 4 Just Kids in
Urbandale, Iowa.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
conservation technology transfer, wisconsin
The goal of this project is to coordinate conservation education on
soil and water issues including nutrient management. To date, one
example of success pertains to integrated University research and
extension outreach with Natural Resources Conservation Service
technical assistance mission. This integrated effort has resulted in
cooperative programs that have been used to train and give direct on-
farm consultations and nutrient management assessments to over 2,000
producers who farm a total of 1,358,958 acres in 63 Wisconsin counties.
Ninety-five percent of these producers completed a nutrient management
plan or have one in development. Cost savings in lower fertilizer
inputs have exceeded $1,200 annually per farmer in a representative
sample of those who follow their plans. The Discovery Farms and Pioneer
Farms portions of this program reach over 10,000 additional farmers per
year with on-farm demonstrations, educational publications and local
meetings designed to stimulate their interest in nutrient management
planning and other conservation practices. Finally, local newsletters
are used to inform thousands of farmers and other Wisconsin landowners
annually, of important conservation education and cost share programs.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000 with an
appropriation of $170,000; for fiscal year 2001, $473,955; for fiscal
year 2002, $490,000; for fiscal year 2003, $496,750; for fiscal year
2004, $447,345; for fiscal year 2005, $463,264; for fiscal year 2006,
$481,140; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008, $372,375; and
for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $376,000 per year. The total amount
appropriated is $4,146,829.
This project is being conducted with individual producers and land
managers throughout Wisconsin, in coordination with USDA Agricultural
Research Stations operated by the University of Wisconsin, Madison. A
number of other States are also adapting portions of the program.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
dairy education, iowa
The goals of this program Are: (1) to retain and grow the business
of existing dairy farm families; (2) foster the development of new
family dairy operations; (3) recruit dairy families from other regions
to Northeast Iowa; (4) improve the image of the dairy industry; and (5)
support specialized dairy production and processing.
These goals are being realized by providing educational
opportunities for current and future dairy industry participants. Since
2000, the Northeast Iowa Dairy Foundation has helped contribute to the
success of more than 300 students enrolled in the program's dairy
curriculum. Approximately 95 of those 300 former students now operate,
own, and/or manage successful dairy farms, milking roughly 12,730 cows
and generating $203,680,000 in economic activity each year. These farms
have contributed to a strong rural economy and infrastructure in Iowa.
It is estimated that every 50 dairy cows create one full-time
equivalent farm job, so at least 28 farm jobs have been created by the
cows being milked by alumni of this program. Totaled, at least 61
agricultural jobs are saved annually as a result of this program.
Moreover, for every new job created in agriculture, an additional 1.3
jobs are added to the State's employment base; so in addition to the 61
agricultural jobs, graduates contribute to another 79 off-the-farm
jobs, for a total of 140 jobs created annually.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2001. The
appropriation for fiscal year 2001 was $237,476. In fiscal year 2002,
the appropriation was $232,000; in fiscal year 2003, $233,473; in
fiscal year 2004, $210,749; in fiscal year 2005, $229,152; in fiscal
year 2006, $226,710; in fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008,
$168,810; in fiscal year 2009, $159,000; and in fiscal year 2010,
$175,000. The total amount appropriated is $1,872,370.
The work in this program takes place at The Dairy Education and
Applied Research Center, located one mile South of Calmar, Iowa,
adjacent to the Northeast Iowa Community College Calmar Campus.
Resources at this Center include a 17,000 square foot education center,
laboratories, and production facilities for 200 dairy cows.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
diabetes detection and prevention, washington and pennsylvania
The goal of the integrated extension and research project, led by
the Joslin Diabetes Center, is to develop and conduct a community-
based, extension diabetes detection and prevention program that would
increase public awareness of diabetes, risk factors for diabetes, and
healthy living behaviors to prevent or delay diabetes and related
complications. In 2009, specific program aims are: continued expansion
of the On the RoadTM sites to increase awareness,
identification and proper management of diabetes; investigate methods
for community screening of diabetes with emphasis on post-screening
follow-up; test and evaluate the community use of On the
RoadTM nutrition and exercise modules; develop and establish
a yearly Diabetes Symposium in Hawaii aimed at providers, community
health workers and patients; update and manage the project database to
improve data collection and analyses and program evaluation; develop
and publish a Medication booklet to accompany On the RoadTM
materials; update and deploy retinal imaging equipment; and establish
project sustainability and outreach to non-partner States and expansion
into new venues.
The goal of the work by Temple University in collaboration with
Pennsylvania State University Cooperative Extension is to promote
behaviors that are associated with decreased risk of obesity, diabetes
and its complication in underserved urban communities. For this work,
Temple University is using Dining with Diabetes, a well-established
program created and used by Extension educators for community-based
diabetes support and education of adults with type 2 diabetes. In
addition, Temple University is conducting formative research among
students, parents and school food service on breakfast participation
among middle school students as relates to incidence and prevalence of
overweight and obesity.
An example of one accomplishment pertains to the Joslin Diabetes
Center lead extension and research activities is the Diabetes Symposium
in Hilo, Hawaii:
Joslin Diabetes Center worked with University of Hawaii partners to
put together the first annual Big Island Diabetes Summit. This 3-day
event took place in Hilo October 17, 2009. Joslin faculty presented
sessions on nutrition and diabetes management to physicians--35,
dietitians and nurse educators--35, and people with diabetes--60 with
over 130 attendees in attendance. The Big Island Diabetes Summit was
developed to provide education, tools and resources to an area
educationally underserved for both providers and patients.
People with diabetes and caregivers were invited to attend the
evening Summit session that included a free A1C and Blood Pressure
screening before the event. Several caregivers not previously diagnosed
were identified with A1C, greater than 6.5 percent, criteria for
referral for full evaluation and possible diagnosis of diabetes. The
session included an interactive education dinner with carbohydrate
counting tips and healthy eating resources.
The event was well received by all groups and will be held again
next year as the 2nd Annual Big Island Diabetes Summit. Local radio
stations expressed interest in the event, as well as other local
businesses. Planning for next year includes attaining more support and
involvement from local businesses and organizations.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999. The
funds appropriated to date are: 1999: $550,000; 2000: $550,000; 2001:
$923,963; 2002: $906,000; 2003: $917,994; 2004: $1,089,534; 2005:
$1,084,256; 2006: $1,082,070; 2007: $0; 2008: $806,316; 2009:
$1,033,000; 2010: $1,033,000; total appropriated is $9,976,133.
The research aspects of the work to include educational development
for the ``On the Road'' materials and data analysis are being carried
out at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston, Massachusetts. ``Dining
with Diabetes'' materials are developed at the West Virginia University
by Extension staff. The Cooperative Extension office of each of the
five Land-Grant Universities--Washington State University, the
University of Hawaii, New Mexico State University, West Virginia
University, Pennsylvania State University--are sites for educational
material development, training of professionals and paraprofessionals,
and data storage. The project makes a deliberate attempt to reach
diverse and underserved audiences outside the mainstream healthcare
system through a variety of methods and at non-traditional sites. For
example, the program is being conducted in a diabetes screening and
health center in a shopping center in Hilo, Hawaii, and in community
facilities in Washington and New Mexico. In New Mexico, the project
attempts to work with the colonistas, located along the border and
among the Nation's poorest; New Mexico has implemented the program with
the Navajo Nation. In addition, Temple University in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, is the site of two program interventions related to
community based approaches to prevent a treat obesity and diabetes.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
e-commerce, mississippi
The E-Commerce Extension Demonstration Project helps small
businesses and rural communities use information technology to
strengthen and develop businesses and to create a supportive business
climate in rural communities. Its goal is to grow the rural economy by
developing and delivering timely information, training, and technical
assistance to the hundreds of small businesses and business leaders
that dominate rural America's economic landscape. It builds the
capacity of the land-grant university system to conduct research,
deliver science-based information, train educators, and deliver high
quality e-commerce education. The project is under the leadership of
the Southern Rural Development Center (SRDC) and operates in
partnership with the three other Regional Rural Development Centers and
the Nation's Cooperative Extension Service.
In fiscal year 2009, the project's competitive grants program has
awarded nearly $600,000 to date involving the development of 15
educational resources or curricula. It worked with e-commerce grantees
to develop and release four comprehensive on-line curriculum products
in 2009 for use by Extension educators and customers across the Nation.
They are ``Marketing Food Specialty Products Online,'' ``Beginner's
Guide to e-Commerce,'' ``Web site Basics: A Primer for Hispanic Small
Businesses''--available in English and Spanish, and ``Electronic
Retailing: Selling on the Internet.'' The project's National e-Commerce
Extension Advisory Committee reviewed and recommended funding for the
development of three new curriculum products slated for release in
2010. They are ``Web Presence Strategies for Small Communities and
Local Governments,'' ``Using Social Networking Tools to Enhance Small
Business,'' and Search Engine Optimization (SEO) Strategies.'' The
project updated and maintained the National e-Commerce Extension
Initiative Web site, a state-of-the-art site that offers Extension
educators and consumers high quality broadband and e-commerce
information on a 24/7/365 basis. From January to November of 2009, the
National eCommerce Extension Initiative Web site generated 10,729
individual non-repeat visitors according to the Google analytic reports
we prepared.
The project awarded six competitive State mini-grants to help
facilitate the launching of e-commerce programming that supports ``on
the ground'' piloting of the resources developed by the SRDC. Mini-
grants were awarded to teams of Extension educators in Alabama,
Oklahoma, Michigan, Missouri, South Carolina, and Tennessee. To date,
these grants have resulted in nine workshops in five States and one
national webinar. Three of the six awardees report evaluation efforts
for both short and long term workshop participant impacts.
It developed and released a second round mini-grant Request for
Proposals (RFP) in the fall of 2009 and produced and published six
eNews electronic newsletters, distributed to over 1,000 people
nationwide, offering ready access to research reports, statistical
data, and educational programs as they relate to e-commerce. It also
organized and hosted a series of four webinars that offered Extension
Educators and other participants effective strategies for using the
newly released e-commerce curricula. It researched, completed, and
released a tutorials section of the National e-Commerce Extension
Initiative Web site created to give Web site users information about
Web site design, set-up, and maintenance. Finally, it reviewed and
approved sources for the ``Library of Resource'' section of the
National e-Commerce Extension Initiative Web site. The Library section
is a comprehensive listing of other sources available throughout the
Internet that can enhance one's awareness and knowledge of a host of e-
commerce resources and programs.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2003. The
appropriated amount was $372,563 for fiscal year 2003; $344,018 for
fiscal year 2004; $331,328 for fiscal year 2005; $327,690 for fiscal
year 2006; $0 for fiscal year 2007; $246,264 for fiscal year 2008; and
$231,000 per year in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. A total of $2,083,863
has been appropriated.
The work is being carried out through the leadership of the SRDC
located at Mississippi State University. It draws on SRDC's network of
Extension faculty located in land-grant institutions in Mississippi,
the south, and nationally, and its partner Regional Rural Development
Centers in the northeast, north central, and western regions.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
efficient irrigation, new mexico and texas
The main objective is to efficiently use and/or conserve the
limited available water in the Texas and New Mexico Rio Grande Basin in
order to meet present and future water needs for the region. In doing
so, this project will provide extension education to increase the
efficiency of agriculture and urban landscape irrigation and encourage
the development of efficient water markets in the Rio Grande Basin.
This project will also focus on defining current irrigation district
and system deficiencies and work towards correcting those practices.
Subject areas addressed include irrigation district studies;
irrigation education and training; institutional incentives for
efficient water use; on-farm irrigation system management; urban
landscape and in-home water conservation; environment, ecology, and
water quality protection; saline and waste water management and water
use; basin-wide hydrology studies, salinity modeling, and technology;
and project oversight, communications, biometric support, and
accountability for the multi-components of this multi-State project.
Economics models continue to provide valuable information to
irrigation districts, aiding them with decision-making on costs,
rehabilitation, and other issues. Engineers continue to provide
training and information to irrigation district managers that help
their district delivery systems work more efficiently. The managers
value the information provided by both the economists and engineers and
use it to make management decisions. Other workshops, trainings, short
courses, and field days have been held for homeowners and agricultural
producers. These events demonstrate more efficient and water conserving
technologies, which help the participants realize the importance and
effects of their water use and practices. Many homeowners in particular
have adopted these in-home water conservation strategies, saving not
only gallons of water but money.
The Nutrient Management Education in the Rio Grande Valley Team
helped Valley producers reduce fertilizer use to increase their
profitability and make the Arroyo Colorado Watershed and Rio Grande
Basin healthy again. Results achieved so far through marketing,
educational programs and free soil testing campaigns are remarkable:
Producers adopting these best soil management practices increased by 60
percent; actual fertilizer application was reduced by more than 2.6
million pounds of nitrogen and 3 million pounds of phosphorus; growers
saved $1.6 million or $9.47 to $27.07 an acre; and the watershed's
water quality improved dramatically.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2001, and the
appropriation for fiscal year 2001 was $1,895,820; for fiscal year
2002, $1,960,000; for fiscal year 2003, $2,026,740; for fiscal year
2004, $2,057,787; for fiscal year 2005, $2,161,568; for fiscal year
2006, $2,301,750; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008,
$1,714,911; and for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, $1,610,000 per year.
The total amount appropriated is $17,338,576.
Texas A&M University and New Mexico State University jointly
conduct this extension program through coordination provided by Texas
A&M University Extension.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
extension specialist, mississippi
The goal of this project is to gather and disseminate critical
agricultural weather data for producers and researchers in Mississippi,
surrounding States, and the Nation.
Weather stations were installed to provide data for USDA and
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station (MAFES)
scientists to predict seasonal variation with wind. Information is
planned to be part of the Delta Agriculture Weather Center Web site.
The information available primarily on the interactive Internet Web
site (www.deltaweather.msstate.edu), has contributed greatly to the
actual and potential annual savings for cotton, soybean, and rice
producers. The Rice DD50 program allows farmers to reduce their risks
and thus avoid possible losses due to untimely application of
protection material for certain insects. Cotton DD60 heat units made
available on a daily basis can allow the Mississippi Delta farmers to
reduce the cost of treatments by over $24 million annually. This
reduction in treatments translates into over 112,000 pounds of active
ingredient of pesticide applications not sprayed in the Mississippi
Delta per year. They also use these data to monitor the cotton boll
formation to help time harvest aid application for economical
defoliation.
The funding for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 was $50,000 each year;
for fiscal years 1999-2000, $100,000 each year; for fiscal year 2001,
$99,780; for fiscal year 2002, $100,000; for fiscal year 2003,
$l49,025; for fiscal year 2004, $133,209; for fiscal year 2005,
$131,936; for fiscal year 2006, $130,680; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for
fiscal year 2008, $98,307; for fiscal year 2009, $92,000; and for
fiscal year 2010, $98,000. A total of $1,332,937 has been appropriated.
The project is conducted by Mississippi State University at the
Delta Research and Extension Center in Stoneville, Mississippi.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
food production education, vermont
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $120,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's goals and objectives.
health education leadership, kentucky
The goal of this program is to develop a partnership among the
University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service, the Kentucky
College of Public Health, and the academic health centers at the
University of Kentucky to improve the health status of Kentucky
citizens through (1) utilizing a model for family health with the
framework as the family being the micro unit in a macro system of
public health and healthcare and being the first providers of
healthcare and prevention; (2) creating a partnership of families,
communities, Extension professionals, and university researchers to
design and implement programs at the local level that will change the
health status of Kentuckians; and (3) utilizing a diffusion model to
more rapidly diffuse new research findings and programs throughout the
State and examine the effectiveness of new health behavior
interventions.
The following innovative programs have been developed and
implemented: Get Moving Kentucky, A Matter of Balance, The Literacy,
Eating, and Activity for Pre-School Program, Small Steps to Health and
Wealth and Team-Up Cancer Screening. The Literacy, Eating, and Activity
program added an additional 12 curriculum modules. The Blue to You,
Mental Health for Women curriculum was piloted in 11 western Kentucky
counties and evaluation is underway. Wellness in Kentucky has been
adapted from Wellness in the Rockies and will be implemented statewide
during 2010. The American On the Move program designed for Cooperative
Extension has been integrated into the Get Moving Kentucky program.
This program is being used by Extension educators in several counties
and data collected on participants' progress will be helpful to program
evaluation. Both the Men's health program and the Smoking Cessation
social marketing program and curriculum have been tested and data
collected for program evaluation prior to full-scale implementation in
2011.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2002 with an
appropriation of $800,000. Additional appropriations are $894,150 for
fiscal year 2003; $800,251 for fiscal year 2004; $843,200 for fiscal
year 2005; $834,570 for fiscal year 2006; $0 in fiscal year 2007;
$627,576 in fiscal year 2008; and $590,000 per year in fiscal years
2009 and 2010. A total of $5,979,747 has been appropriated.
The program is being carried out at the University of Kentucky and
in all 120 counties in the State of Kentucky.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
income enhancement demonstration, ohio
The goal of this project is to develop new agricultural businesses
and restructure and expand existing businesses in response to domestic
and international challenges. In 2005, the project moved from the Ohio
State University to the Edison Industrial Systems Center and, more
specifically, to a non-profit subsidiary of that company, the
Innovative Food Technology Center. To date, current progress and new
accomplishments include, but are not limited to the following:
--Urban Agriculture/Novel Growing Systems.--During the past year,
existing demonstrations of high tunnel, unheated ``hoop
houses'', and of high-density, vertical hydroponic growing
systems were expanded. The goal of the demonstrations was to
illustrate the economic benefit of each of the technologies. As
a direct result of these demonstrations, one additional hoop
houses, as well as nine additional hydroponic systems, were
purchased by northwest Ohio entities and organizations.
--Green Products.--Since initiating efforts in this area, CIFT has
been in contact via seminars, Web broadcasts, and personal
contact, with more than 200 producers or potential producers of
green products or green versions of existing products. This has
resulted in two new product launches by CIFT constituents.
--Biomass Processing.--At the request of several industry, community,
and governmental groups, CIFT is participating in the Wood
County, Ohio-Agricultural Task Force, a group that is examining
the economics of a community based anaerobic digester. Inspired
by this project, CIFT has also been requested to organize a
similar effort in Defiance County, Ohio.
--Energy Crops.--A current project involving a demonstration and
evaluation of camelina is underway. As the crop is harvested,
oil will be extracted and evaluated in order to determine
whether favorable economics would exist for expanded production
of camelina as an ``extra'' crop in Ohio, increasing per acre
revenue for midwestern growers. CIFT is also actively involved
in promoting the results of research that is undertaking with
the University of Toledo to produce algae as a source of
biofuel feedstock.
--Food Safety Training.--Several years ago, CIFT was selected as the
lead food safety educator for the Good Agricultural Practices
program offered by the Mid-American Agricultural and
Horticultural Services organization. CIFT has continued to
offer this type training to small specialty crop growers,
either as individual consulting, or in educational programming
opportunities.
--Alternate Protein Sources.--During the past year, several
technology development projects were completed by CIFT that
dealt with methods to provide protein to feeding programs for
the poor, for school children, and for elderly. These projects
each considered safe and healthy alternates for these programs.
They each also had significant economic development advantages
inherent in their concepts. During the coming year, CIFT will
attempt to develop evaluation and implementation plans for each
of the results. The projects are, first, a product development
effort to produce high protein canned meat product by combining
mechanically separated poultry and soy protein isolates. The
rationale is that this product will provide economic benefit to
the poultry industry by upgrading a marginally valuable
ingredient, while at the same time increasing the nutritional
value of protein sources distributed through feeding programs.
The second project evaluated the economics of growing various
dry bean cultivars and utilizing them to prepare healthy, high
protein meals for feeding programs. Finally, CIFT is leading
the Lake Erie Underutilized Fish Marketing Project, a
consortium which is evaluating the use of several nutritious
and plentiful fish species from Lake Erie to manufacture
alternative value added, preserved seafood products.
The project began in 1991. Appropriations have been as follows:
$145,000 in fiscal year 1991; $250,000 per year in fiscal years 1992
through 1995; $246,000 per year in fiscal years 1996 through 2000;
$245,459 in fiscal year 2001; $241,000 in fiscal year 2002; $239,434 in
fiscal year 2003; $213,732 in fiscal year 2004; $725,152 in fiscal year
2005; $1,234,530 in fiscal year 2006, $0 in fiscal year 2007; $919,518
in fiscal year 2008; and $864,000 per year in fiscal years 2009 and
2010. Appropriations to date total $7,921,825.
The work is being carried out at the facilities of the Innovative
Food Technology Center, Toledo, Ohio.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
institute for sustainable agriculture, wisconsin
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $400,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's goals and objectives.
invasive phragmite control and outreach, michigan
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $155,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's goals and objectives.
iowa vitality center
The program was established to develop policy analysis to improve
rural vitality in the State.
The survival of many of Iowa's rural communities is in question,
and communities in the State vary in their capacity to stimulate
development and economic growth. The need for this program is to assist
residents of Iowa's small and medium-sized rural communities as they
work to improve economic and social conditions and achieve sustainable
rural and community vitality. Since 2007 the project has focused on its
Microenterprise Initiative. The local need for microenterprise
assistance, entrepreneurial development projects, and community
philanthropy in creating community vitality is increased because of
weather related disasters and the credit crisis, drop in commodity
prices, and overall economic downturn.
In 2009, the project continued technical assistance and funding
support for Iowa's statewide MicroLoan entity called the Iowa
Foundation for Microenterprise and Community Vitality, a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit foundation organized by the project as a statewide microloan
intermediary that contracts with Cooperative Extension to coordinate
Technical Assistance for Microloan clients. It designed Iowa's
Microloan Web site, and went live in January 2009
(www.iowamicroloan.org). During 2009, 60 applicants who were denied
credit by commercial lenders were assisted by the project in developing
Iowa Microloan applications; 20 microloan clients were approved for a
microloan for which the project developed a technical assistance plan
in collaboration with the entrepreneur; two-thirds of the microloan
clients were startups and one-third were expansions; 2 microloan
clients were minorities; no delinquencies or defaults were experienced
in first year; and 15 Technical Assistance plans were developed and
implemented. It also identified collaborators and negotiated agreements
with eight Iowa regional and statewide microenterprise assistance
networks.
The project provided technical assistance to the Community
Foundation of Greater Des Moines in organizing microenterprise and
philanthropy projects for five rural affiliate county foundations. It
also initiated four nonmetro county philanthropy capacity projects in
collaboration with Iowa Council of Foundation--www.cvcia.org. It
initiated the Ghana Millennium Fund Agricultural Microfinance
Consultancy and consulted on New Market Tax Credits for four rural
projects with three Iowa-based Community Development Entities.
The project completed 15 County Reports for its Rural Migration
Study and conducted 20 local and regional meetings with 365 community
leaders--www.cvcia.org. It also conducted local demonstrations to help
seven community entrepreneurs, and co-sponsored 12 succession planning
workshops. It completed the Youth Marketplace Entrepreneurship Project
in Sac County Middle Schools.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2002.
Appropriated amounts are: fiscal year 2002, $280,000; fiscal year 2003,
$278,180; fiscal year 2004, $250,513; fiscal year 2005, $248,000;
fiscal year 2006, $245,520; fiscal year 2007, $0; fiscal year 2008,
$223,425; fiscal year 2009, $209,000; and fiscal year 2010, $250,000. A
total of $1,984,638 has been appropriated.
The program is being conducted at Iowa State University.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
maine cattle health assistance program
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $700,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's goals and objectives.
national center for farm safety, iowa
The project supports training at the National Education Center for
Agricultural Safety, or NECAS, to reduce the level of preventable
illnesses, injuries, and fatalities among agricultural populations. The
NECAS provides hand-on training to emergency response personnel and
first responders. NECAS also develops, implement, and evaluate diverse
training methods for at-risk agricultural audiences.
Training topics covered included agricultural rescue and emergency
preparedness, commercial training on hazardous material handling and
pesticides, and youth and elderly farm safety training. The Center also
conducted awareness and informational programs on rural and
agricultural health, certification of safe farms, farm equipment
rescue, and safe tractor operation.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998 with an
allocation of $195,000 per year for fiscal years 1998-2000; for fiscal
year 2001, $194,571; for fiscal year 2002, $196,000; for fiscal year
2003, $196,713; for fiscal year 2004, $223,673; for fiscal year 2005,
$241,056; for fiscal year 2006, $238,590; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for
fiscal year 2008, $167,817; for fiscal year 2009, $158,000; and for
fiscal year 2010, $170,000. The total amount appropriated is
$2,371,420.
The National Education Center for Agricultural Safety is located at
the Northeast Iowa Community College in Peosta, Iowa.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
nutrition enhancement, wisconsin
The objectives of this program are to improve food security of
school-age children through school breakfast promotion, enhancement,
and coordination by increasing the number of children and schools
participating in the school breakfast programs; to provide research-
based information, education and outreach associated with school
breakfast promotion and enhancement to support county-based Extension
staff efforts that further the school breakfast program; to provide
research-based information, education and outreach related to school
breakfast programs to schools across the State; and to provide
leadership to statewide efforts to collect and summarize impact
evaluation results related to school breakfast. Other initiatives
include conducting in-depth interviews with key school food service
directors from across the State to obtain detailed information for non-
participation in the breakfast program. In addition, efforts will focus
on working with non-participating schools which qualify as severe, or
schools with high percentages of free and reduced price qualifying
students.
To date a number of activities have been completed or are in
progress. Following a noncompetitive grant application process, mini
grants were awarded in September 2009 for schools to implement new
breakfast programs or to improve an existing program. Forty-two
Wisconsin schools received funding to start up a new breakfast program
and 111 received program improvement grants. The conversion of the
current school breakfast Web site to an updated blog is near
completion. This new blog will incorporate easier navigation features
and integrate new research and updated reports currently not found on
the Web site. Formation of the school breakfast advisory board is in
progress. A face to face meeting of this Board with key leaders in
school breakfast promotion was in January 2010. Work with
organizational partners, such as the Wisconsin Dietetic Association,
the Wisconsin School Nutrition Association, Wisconsin Parent Teacher
Association, and the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board continues and is
vital to the promotion of school breakfast programs across the State.
Determination of severe need, non-participating schools is a project
that is based on the most current data Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction collects from schools and this data is scheduled for
release in spring 2010. Due to a demand for more information on school
breakfast, two regional conferences will be offered in 2010. The first
will be in Stevens Point, Wisconsin in February 2010 and the second in
Fond du Lac, Wisconsin in April 2010.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2004 with an
appropriation of $894,690; $965,216 in fiscal year 2005; $1,089,000 in
fiscal year 2006; in fiscal year 2007, $0; in fiscal year 2008,
$744,750; in fiscal year 2009, $751,000; and in fiscal year 2010,
$950,000. A total of $5,394,656 has been appropriated.
The work is being carried out at the University of Wisconsin--
Extension, Madison, in collaboration with the Wisconsin Department of
Public Instruction and in 153 schools.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
ohio-israel agriculture initiative
The grant is for the Cleveland-based Negev Foundation to promote
the exchange of agricultural technology and resources between Israel
and the State of Ohio. The objective of the Initiative is to foster
greater collaboration between Ohio and Israeli government and research
institutions, farmers and companies; develop joint research and
development and educational activities; identify agribusiness ventures
based on new technologies; introduce potential investors; and expand
commercial ties and market access in both regions. Activities underway
include exports of Ohio-bred beef calves to Israel, agricultural
biosecurity training, soybean purchases and joint processing
facilities, aquaculture cooperation, drip irrigation demonstrations in
Ohio, model greenhouse development, participation in trade shows (trade
shows in Israel promoting Ohio agricultural exports), and joint Ohio-
Israel applied research and scientific exchanges on dairy production,
food safety, integrated pest management, precision and no-till
agriculture, and greenhouse technologies.
This project began in fiscal year 2004. The fiscal year 2004
appropriation was $536,814; for fiscal year 2005, $564,448; for fiscal
year 2006, $587,070; for fiscal year 2007, $0; for fiscal year 2008,
$495,507; for fiscal year 2009, $466,000; and for fiscal year 2010,
$700,000. The total amount appropriated is $3,349,839.
The project is implemented by the Negev Foundation of Cleveland,
Ohio, and project activities are being carried out primarily in Ohio
and Israel. The Ohio State University (OSU) is collaborating with Negev
on several activities, including on-campus seminars, participating in
trade mission teams, exchanging agricultural research findings and
technologies with Israeli scientists, and engaging OSU Cooperative
Extension Service personnel as appropriate.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
pilot technology transfer projects, oklahoma and mississippi
The goal of these projects to contribute to an increase in business
productivity, employment opportunities, and per capita income by
increasing information technology capital, locally and throughout the
States, and applying information from Federal laboratories, Cooperative
Extension, and other university departments and non-campus agencies.
The specific program objectives are to enhance profitability for
existing enterprises; aid in the acquisition, creation, or expansion of
business and industry in the area; establish an effective response
process for technological and industrial-related inquires; devise
effective communication procedures regarding the program for the
relevant audiences; and provide one-on-one and on-site engineering,
technology, and management assistance to small-scale rural
manufacturers. Oklahoma's Manufacturing Extension Partnership--the
Oklahoma Alliance for Manufacturing Excellence has received national
acclaim for its noteworthy and effective partnership with the land-
grant university.
In Oklahoma, for fiscal year 2009, the reported impact of the
Applications Engineering program on client projects totaled over $68
million. This included approximately $31.5 million in sales increase/
retention, $5.8 million in cost savings/avoidance, $15.3 million in new
investment in facilities and equipment, and 209 jobs created or
retained with an economic impact of approximately $15.8 million.
In Mississippi, primary impacts included increased knowledge and
skills regarding software selection and use, hardware selection/
procurement, technological advances, and technology planning/
implementation. Specific impacts included persons obtaining jobs due to
increased skills, companies having better trained and more capable
employees, and individuals being more effective and efficient in their
personal lives.
Funding appropriated to date is as follows: $350,000 per year in
fiscal years 1984 and 1985; $335,000 in fiscal year 1986; $333,000 per
year in fiscal years 1987 through 1990; $331,000 per year in fiscal
years 1991 through 1995; $326,000 per year in fiscal years 1996 through
2000; $325,283, 2001; $319,000, 2002; $335,803, 2003; $300,218, 2004;
$297,600, 2005; $297,000, 2006; $0, 2007; $223,425, 2008; and $209,000
per year, 2009 and 2010. Total appropriations are $8,168,329.
The Oklahoma efforts are being coordinated at Oklahoma State
University and at Rural Enterprises of Oklahoma, Inc. In addition, work
is being done in the offices and shop floors of small, rural
manufacturers across Oklahoma and Mississippi. Coordination of work is
being carried out at Mississippi State University and on the shop
floors of small, rural manufacturers, community colleges, on the
Internet, and in every county in Mississippi.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
pilot technology transfer, wisconsin
The Manufacturing Technology Transfer programs principal objective
in the development of a competitive, secure manufacturing base for
rural communities through the mechanism of industrial extension. The
program principally targets small and medium-size manufacturers in the
economically distressed counties of Northwest Wisconsin.
In 2007, the project managers report that this funding produced the
following impacts for program participants in Northwest Wisconsin:
increased sales, retention of sales, cost savings, targeted technology
investments by clients totaling $90 million; 2,600 jobs were retained
or created; 114 small and medium-sized manufacturers were served with
165 technology transfer projects.
In 2009, project managers continued to pilot test the relevance and
effectiveness of new technology, business strategies, and systems by
monitoring new concepts, systems, and technology with companies in our
region. Project managers attended seminars to develop competencies in
the topics selected. They also will continue to refine their
Cooperative Extension activities by exploring ways to facilitate
entrepreneurship by making referrals to and working closely with
organizations such as the Small Business Development Center, University
of Wisconsin--Extension, Small Business Association, University of
Wisconsin--Stout's Economic Development Administration, and University
of Wisconsin--Stout's Center for Innovation and Development.
This project has been underway since fiscal year 1992 and was
funded for $165,000 per year in fiscal years 1992 through 1995;
$163,000 per year in fiscal years 1996 through 2000; $162,641, 2001;
$160,000, 2002; $161,941, 2003; $214,726, 2004; $231,136, 2005;
$247,500, 2006; $0, 2007; $184,698, 2008; and $174,000 per year, 2009
and 2010. A total of $3,185,642 has been appropriated.
The program has been carried out in northwest Wisconsin at the
University of Wisconsin, Stout campus, and at the facilities of the
following technical colleges in northwest Wisconsin: Chippewa Valley,
North Central, Nicolet, and Wisconsin Indianhead. Work has also been
carried out on-site at small and medium-size manufacturing companies in
northwest Wisconsin.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
potato integrated pest management, maine
The goal of this extension education project was to improve disease
forecasting and management of potato late blight by providing growers
with educational information to make decisions relating to field
management of the late blight races and other pest problems, potato
disease forecasting, disposal of cull potatoes, insect spread of potato
diseases, insect management, implementation of economic thresholds,
insect identification, disease identification, weed identification, and
increase the knowledge base by increasing research efforts.
The University of Maine Cooperative Extension's Potato Integrated
Pest Management program impacts nearly 60,000 acres of potatoes. The
program employs 26 program aides, maintains nearly 150 specialized
insect traps, coordinates a statewide network of electronic weather
stations, and surveys 125 potato fields on a weekly basis for weeds,
insects, and diseases. The data produced help scientists track
potential pest outbreaks and helps provide growers with current
information on specific and timely treatments in order to minimize the
number of pesticide applications and maximize potato yield. Weather
conditions during the 2008 growing season were extremely conducive for
the development of potato late blight. In the month of June, it rained
23 of 30 days. This was a 40 percent increase in rainfall as compared
to the average. Over 60 percent of the fields surveyed by the
integrated pest management program in 2008 had detectable levels of
potato late blight in them. Grower implementation of the Extension
computerized disease forecasting program coupled with fungicide
selection and applications, field scouting, early detection, and
appropriate management strategies allowed growers to successfully cope
with the serious late blight pressure. Minimal storage losses
attributed to potato late blight were experienced with the 2008 crop.
It was estimated that the total economic impact of the University of
Maine Cooperative Extension Potato Integrated Pest Management program
for the 2008 crop year was $17,216,136.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $297,900; for fiscal year 2009,
$280,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $450,000. A total of $1,027,900 has
been appropriated.
The research is being conducted at the University of Maine and
throughout the State of Maine.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
potato pest management, wisconsin
The of this project is to assist farmers in reducing risks from
pesticides by working with them to implement practicable pest
management options and to explore marketing strategies to allow growers
to capture additional benefits from pesticide reduction. The project's
accomplishments to date include improving the potato industry's
environmental performance by increasing adoption of biointensive
integrated pest management methods through grower education and the
development of grower outreach tools, developing ecosystem function
priorities and implementing total farm ecosystem plans, and the
continued enhancement of a streamlined, real-time certification system
for certified, eco-labeled niche marketed potatoes. Value-added
marketing opportunities for fresh market potatoes have been researched,
and measurement tools for assessing integrated pest management adoption
and pesticide inputs have been coupled with an environmental potato
production standard that requires potato growers to meet pesticide
toxicity reduction and integrated pest management goals. Progress has
been made in reducing the toxicity levels of pesticides used in potato
production, while increasing biointensive integrated pest management
adoption.
In Wisconsin, the foundation for biointensive integrated pest
management education has been developed. Educational efforts are being
proposed to enable growers to integrate biointensive strategies into
existing production systems. The overall momentum of the collaboration
has been extremely strong with many accomplishments such as the
continuation of the marketing effort, enhancements of the collaboration
standards, improvements of resistance management protocols, database
implementation, grant coordination and expansion of the development and
use of educational tools for growers. The project has involved numerous
faculty, industry representatives, potato and other commodity
organizations, and environmental organizations to export this
agricultural model for targeted and industry-wide change. In Wisconsin,
this work is expanding to other vegetable crops, such as carrots,
peppers, beans, and peas and is now also expanding to fruit crops.
Furthermore, the ecological portions of the collaboration have been
enhanced by working with national and local environmental organizations
and expanding research with University of Wisconsin faculty through the
infusion of their expertise, research, and education into the project.
This strength needs to be maintained, while exporting the model of
industry-wide agricultural changes through the use of policy and
communication efforts.
The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2001, and the
following amounts have been appropriated: 2001, $189,582; 2002,
$396,000; 2003, $298,050; 2004, $357,876; 2005, $375,968; 2006,
$396,000; 2007, $0; 2008, $294,921; and 2009 and 2010, $277,000 per
year. A total of $2,862,397 has been appropriated.
This work is being conducted with fresh market potato growers in
the following Wisconsin counties: Adams, Columbia, Barron, Green Lake,
Langlade, Marquette, Portage, Sauk, Waupaca, and Waushara; apple
growers in Bayfield, the Chippewa Valley, southeastern counties, and
Dane County; and apple/cherry growers in Door County.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
range improvement, new mexico
The focus of the project is the public rangeland resource in New
Mexico. The Range Improvement Project: Analyzing the Cumulative Impacts
of Federal Land Policy and Management, formerly called Range Policy
Development, has a long-term goal to bring disparate information
together into a single analysis and develop a comprehensive solution to
issues on Federal land resources and economies. The program developed
local and regional economic models that link management of Federal
rangeland and forestland to the economies of rural communities in New
Mexico. The economic factors of interest included forage loss from
canopy closure in national forests, endangered species act listings/
designations on habitat and industry, recreation, wilderness, rangeland
health and monitoring, private property rights, and cultures of the
region. The modeling activities were intended to inform policy and
decision makers towards understanding the linkages of local and State
economies to the industries that rely on services from New Mexico
public lands.
It is the vision of this project to merge multiple topics and
disciplines to do a complete analysis for specific geographic regions
in New Mexico. This analysis included a historical perspective on land
uses, economic structure, government regulations, customs and cultures,
and private property issues. It also encompassed the current land uses
and management practices, economic structures, government regulations,
customs and cultures, and private property issues. This project created
a baseline for future analysis in socioeconomic, timber, recreation,
and rangeland issues on Federal lands in New Mexico. Education has been
the primary output related to this project. Information is extended to
a variety of audiences including landowners, industry and agency
personnel. These outreach outputs, according to the project leaders,
might lead to improved site selection, disturbance management, and size
of oil and gas well sites on New Mexico rangelands and throughout the
West. These extension efforts provided the data to support the oil and
gas industry on rangelands with minimized impacts on other uses of the
public domain while maintaining the environmental services. Outreach
publications generated by this project coupled with a new rapid
assessment methodology are both used by landowners, county agents,
agency personnel, and researchers throughout New Mexico.
Collection of primary data has occurred on New Mexico ranches, the
Gila and Lincoln national forests, and Bureau of Land Management
allotments adjacent to those forests in New Mexico. Modeling efforts
for this extension project are being carried out at New Mexico State
University. Regional or county economies have been evaluated for
economic dependence on multiple use Federal lands. Area residents,
industry and agency officials were involved in analyzing and checking
socioeconomic data. Field-collected data were used to update the
information available from the Bureau of Commerce, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the New Mexico Department of Labor. Broad regional
interest in the project has led to efforts to expand applications to
fit other sites in the southwestern United States.
The amounts appropriated are: 1996-2000, $197,000 per year; 2001,
$196,567; 2002, $240,000; 2003, $243,408; 2004, $217,708; 2005,
$232,128; 2006, $241,560; 2007, $0; 2008, $223,425; 2009, $209,000; and
2010, $223,000. A total of $3,211,796 has been appropriated.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
university of wisconsin--extension northern aquaculture demonstration
facility
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $450,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's goals and objectives.
urban horticulture, wisconsin
The goal of this program was to provide the fundamental information
and technology transfer needed by farmers to be successful in the new
enterprises by increasing the capacity of county-based extension
faculty to provide information to the public. County-based faculty are
now working with campus faculty to identify issues where more
information is needed. The project has expanded its focus beyond
providing information primarily to producers by including consumers and
homeowners as well. Overall, over 750 individuals have been empowered
through community, neighborhood and at-risk population programs focused
on fruit and vegetable gardening. The second area of research and
education, impacting over 3,000 horticulturalists in Wisconsin is
sustainable landscape practices, including Web-based pest
identification, appropriate pesticide selection, and preserving water
resources. The project has also involved the creation and dissemination
of new research-based horticultural knowledge through both
traditional--fact sheets, Web sites, etc.--venues as well as new
communication channels--online classes, podcasts, etc. Project funding
from USDA sources has been heavily supplemented through significant
volunteer hours, local funding sources, and individual donations. The
funding has also allowed the project team to leverage significant
community-based relationships in Wisconsin's most urban counties
including Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, and Waukesha. Two important
examples include significant educational/facilities formalized
relationships with the Boerner Botanical Gardens in Milwaukee County as
well as funding relationship with the Milwaukee based non-profit
organization ``Growing Power.''
The work supported by this research began in fiscal year 2002. In
fiscal year 2002, $200,000 was appropriated 2003, $536,490; 2004,
$783,351; 2005, $810,464; 2006, $808,830; 2007, $0; 2008, $346,557; and
2009 and 2010, $376,000 per year. The total appropriated to date has
been $4,237,692.
This project is being conducted at the University of Wisconsin at
Madison through the Wisconsin Extension Service.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
urban horticulture and marketing, illinois
The goals of this project are to provide urban horticulture and
agriculture training for low-income youth and young adults, produce and
market locally grown organic produce at a variety of Chicago-area
markets, and establish a green campus within the community. In 2009,
Windy City Harvest became the first urban agriculture training
certificate program in Illinois to be accredited Illinois Community
College Board. The program attracted and retained a diverse student
body. A Windy City Harvest related production and training garden at
the Cook County Sheriff's Boot Camp is now serving young men in 4-month
incarcerations, and some graduates will participate in the next 9-month
certificate session. Windy City Harvest also collaborated with the
administrators and staff of USDA's Food and Nutrition Services Region 5
Office to create the first Midwest People's Garden on Chicago's west
side.
Fiscal year 2008 was the first year that funds were appropriated
for this grant with an amount of $74,475; for fiscal year 2009,
$104,000; and for fiscal year 2010, $175,000. A total of $353,475 has
been appropriated.
The project will be conducted at the Windy City Harvest in Chicago,
Illinois, in conjunction with the Chicago Botanic Garden and the City
Colleges of Chicago.
Senior agency technical staff conducted a merit review of the
proposal for this research prior to making a funding recommendation.
veterinary technology satellite program, kansas
Fiscal year 2010 is the first year that funds were appropriated for
this grant with an amount of $1,000,000. Since this is a new grant, no
information is available regarding the program's goals and objectives.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Kohl. Our next hearing will be Tuesday, March 9.
We'll be hearing from Dr. Margaret Hamburg, FDA Commissioner,
on the FDA's budget.
Again, we thank you all for being here.
And we will recess at this time.
[Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., Tuesday, March 2, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday,
March 9.]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Herb Kohl (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Kohl, Dorgan, Pryor, and Brownback.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
STATEMENT OF DR. MARGARET HAMBURG, COMMISSIONER
ACCOMPANIED BY:
PATRICK McGAREY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION
NORRIS COCHRAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF BUDGET,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL
Senator Kohl. Good morning. We'd like to welcome each of
you to our annual hearing on the budget for the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).
Dr. Hamburg, we thank you for being here today. We're
pleased to have you testify in front of this subcommittee for
the first time, especially now that you've had a little while
to get settled in your position.
We also appreciate the participation of your colleagues,
Mr. Patrick McGarey and Mr. Norris Cochran.
BUDGET INCREASES
The FDA has been at the receiving end of some fairly
substantial budget increases over the past several years.
Between fiscal years 2007 and 2010, the FDA budget, excluding
user fees, went up by 50 percent. This funding was important.
As we all know, the FDA is responsible for oversight of a wide
array of consumer goods used by every American, often multiple
times each day.
In fact, about 20 cents out of every dollar spent is on a
product regulated by the FDA. This includes foods, drugs,
medical devices, cosmetics, dietary supplements, vaccines,
animal drugs and foods, and most recently, tobacco.
The FDA's budget, for a long time, had not been
representative of the task before the agency. This
subcommittee, in recent years, has been working in a bipartisan
manner to reverse that trend. This year's budget request again
includes increased funding for the FDA, although it's been--
about one-half of the increase provided in fiscal year 2010.
While some believe this is a cause for alarm, it's a realistic
reflection of the need for the government as a whole to slow
down spending. As it is, even though the budget proposes a
smaller increase for FDA than the past few years, it's still a
larger increase than nearly all of the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) and most of the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS).
A brief review of the FDA budget would show that it
includes increases in three overarching themes, which are: food
safety, protecting patients, and advancing regulatory science.
There are also proposals to save money through contract savings
and the enactment of new user fees.
In food safety, increases are proposed for activities
including the establishment of an integrated national food
safety system, a modern import safety system, and additional
and smarter surveillance and enforcement.
For patient safety, increases are proposed to improve the
safety of imports and high-risk products, expand partnerships
with public and private entities, and to slightly increase
FDA's capacity to review generic drug applications.
The Advancing Regulatory Science Initiative includes
proposed increases that will help strengthen the FDA's
scientific leadership, staff, and scientific capacities in
emerging technologies.
The increases are important, but we have concerns. We're
concerned that, without adequate funding levels to maintain FDA
scientists, inspectors, and reviewers, the performance goals
that you list are not realistic and achievable. I want to
repeat something said last week. I believe the goals for this
subcommittee this year will be to produce a bill that protects
the important gains we have made over the last few years,
ensure that programs vital to the health and safety of
Americans are adequately funded, and to do so in a way that
shows fiscal restraint and responsible austerity.
The FDA is obviously vital to the health and safety of
Americans, and it will be adequately funded this year. We won't
allow the agency to lose the ground that we've made up in
recent years. However, we all need to do more with less, and no
one is exempt.
Senator Brownback and I will be looking closely at the
budget and working in a bipartisan manner to make funding
decisions. It will not be an easy job, but it's one that we
must do right. I'm sure that you agree, Dr. Hamburg; and in
that spirit, we are looking forward to continuing our work
together.
We turn now to Senator Brownback.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It's always a pleasure to work with you.
Senator Kohl and I like to talk about basketball too.
Kansas has two top-ten teams in the NCAA basketball tournament,
so we're hopeful we can move forward. And next to the wheat
harvest, this is kind of the big season in Kansas.
Pleasure to have you here, Dr. Hamburg. It was good to
visit with you last week in the office. I enjoyed that, and I
look forward to your presentation here.
RARE AND NEGLECTED DISEASES
I want to follow up on the visit we had, because I've got
some suggestions. I hope you're willing to look at, and that
your staff has been willing to consider, about rare and
neglected diseases, in particular, in the United States and
around the world.
To help jumpstart this effort in rare and neglected
diseases, I worked with the chairman to include a provision in
the current year's appropriation bill that created two groups
within FDA to review the agency's process for approving medical
products for the treatment of rare and neglected diseases. When
fulfilling the agency's requirements under this provision, I
have some ideas that I hope you'll take into serious
consideration, and I hope these teams will be meeting and
reporting out fairly soon.
To date, approximately 7,000 rare diseases have been
identified. These diseases affect more than 30 million
Americans, but there are only FDA-approved treatments for
approximately 200 of these 7,000 rare diseases. So, if you
happen to be one of the 200 that has a FDA treatment, you've
got something to work with. Those other 6,800 rare diseases are
without treatments at all and are not benefiting from the
progress. This is totally unacceptable. And it's 30 million
total Americans that are in this category.
In addition to those suffering from rare diseases in the
United States, there are billions of people worldwide suffering
from diseases that are often ignored because there are no
market incentives for engaging in the costly process of
developing a product for FDA approval. According to the World
Health Organization, one of every six people worldwide is
affected by at least one neglected disease. One in six. This is
particularly astonishing when you consider that only 1 percent
of the drugs approved since 1975 were developed to treat such
diseases that affect one in six people in the world. This, too,
is unacceptable.
Now, solving these problems will involve many government
agencies, and the cooperation of the private sector. Today,
however, I'd like to talk with you about--something I think FDA
can do to substantially impact this category. Specifically, I
believe, and a lot of people agree, that FDA should work to
demystify and simplify the review process for products to treat
deadly rare and neglected diseases.
While it's my expectation that FDA always consider safety
and efficacy while reviewing products, the agency must exercise
flexibility when reviewing certain products. I believe the
agency should establish a second track for product approval
that takes into consideration the unique nature of the product
being approved, including the ability of manufacturers to find
large enough populations for clinical trials, the willingness
of patient groups to knowingly accept certain risk, and the
global public health benefit. Without doing these things, I
think it is highly unlikely we find treatments for these 6,800
rare diseases; I don't see how it happens. And I think we're
probably stuck on this 1 percent figure of work in these
neglected diseases that affect one in six people globally. That
is completely unacceptable, and it doesn't need to be this way.
And you are the person most well positioned to address this.
So, I hope you'll be able to look at this category of
products. You've got a lot of other issues at FDA. I think this
is amongst the top tier of most important.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding the hearing.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Brownback.
We turn now to Dr. Hamburg for your statement.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DR. MARGARET HAMBURG
Dr. Hamburg. Thank you very much, Chairman Kohl and Senator
Brownback.
I'm very pleased to present the President's fiscal year
2011 budget for the FDA.
And, as you note, Patrick McGarey, Budget Director for FDA,
and Norris Cochran, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget at
HHS, are with me this morning.
BUDGET REQUEST
My testimony outlines the fiscal year 2011 budget request.
It also includes a summary of recent developments related to
our new responsibilities to regulate tobacco products and other
important FDA initiatives.
As you know, this is my first time before this
subcommittee, and I look very much forward to working with you.
I deeply appreciate the support that you've given to the FDA,
and I know that you share my determination to make sure that we
can count on, as a Nation, a strong, fully functional FDA. And,
as you point out, FDA is a unique and important agency
responsible for programs and activities that affect every
American every day.
The fiscal year 2010 appropriation reflects your commitment
to FDA and the health of the American public. Those funds will
allow FDA to make progress across a wide range of public health
priorities which are essential to the health, quality of life,
safety, and security of all Americans. So, again, I thank you.
The proposed fiscal year 2011 budget includes
$4,000,000,000 for FDA programs, which is an increase of
$755,000,000, with $601,000,000 in user fees, and $154,000,000
in budget authority.
We're proposing three major initiatives in areas vital to
our mission: transforming food safety, protecting patients, and
advancing regulatory science. These initiatives are crucial for
the modernization of the agency to the challenges presented by
the 21st century.
TRANSFORMING FOOD SAFETY
The Transforming Food Safety Initiative reflects President
Obama's vision of a new food safety system to protect the
American people. And it's based on the principles of the
President's Food Safety Working Group: prioritizing prevention,
strengthening surveillance and enforcement, and improving
response and recovery.
FDA proposes an increase of $326,000,000 for transforming
food safety, with $88,000,000 in budget authority, and
$238,000,000 for new user fees, including $200,000,000 for a
food registration and inspection fee.
The fiscal year 2011 resources would allow FDA to establish
a foundation for an integrated national food safety system
focused on prevention. Key elements include setting standards
for safety, expanding laboratory capacity, piloting track and
trace technology, strengthening import safety, improving data
collection and risk analysis for foods, and increasing
inspections. This initiative will allow FDA to make the kind of
changes needed to deliver the promise of improved food safety
and reduce illnesses caused by contamination of the food supply
in years to come.
PROTECTING PATIENTS
The Protecting Patients Initiative reflects FDA's pressing
need to modernize our approach to patient safety and the safety
of medical products. This is a time when science and technology
offers new promise to improve disease prevention, diagnosis and
treatment, as well as new protections for safety. This is also
a time when an increasing number of drugs, devices, and
biologics are being manufactured abroad. FDA must act as a
strong and smart regulator, addressing medical product safety
challenges in the years ahead.
The budget proposes an increase of $101,000,000 for this
initiative, including $49,000,000 in budget authority. The
balance is for two new user fees, generic drugs fees and fees
for reinspecting medical product facilities.
The Protecting Patients Initiative focuses on four vital
areas: import safety, high-risk products, partnerships for
patient safety, and generic drug review. These activities will
have a very significant impact on public health in the United
States. This science-based strategy will build new and greater
safety capabilities. The result will be fewer import safety
emergencies and fewer serious adverse events with drugs,
devices, and biologics.
FDA is proposing, in our budget, a new focus on advancing
regulatory science, which is very important and exciting. It
includes an increase of $25,000,000 for this much-needed
initiative. Regulatory science represents the knowledge and
tools we need to assess and evaluate a product's safety,
efficacy, potency, quality, and performance. It is fundamental
to all of our work at FDA, from supporting the development of
new food and medical technologies to bringing new treatments to
patients. In many ways, it represents the gateway between
discovery, innovation, and opportunity and actual products that
people need and can count on. Building a strong, robust
regulatory science capacity is vital to the health of our
Nation--to the health of people, our healthcare system, our
economy, and our global competitiveness.
During the past two decades, research has dramatically
expanded our understanding of biology and disease, yet the
development of new therapies has been in decline and the costs
of bringing them to market have soared. New approaches and
partnerships in the emerging field of regulatory science are
urgently needed to bridge the gap between drug discovery and
patient care, and, I might add, to address some of the concerns
that Senator Brownback just raised.
ADVANCING REGULATORY SCIENCE
Investing in regulatory science will yield better tools,
standards, and pathways to evaluate products that offer
promising opportunities to diagnose, treat, cure, and prevent
disease. It will also improve product safety, quality, and
manufacturing, more broadly, including new opportunities to
better protect the food supply and support the development of
healthy foods and food choices.
TOBACCO CONTROL ACT
On June 22, 2009, the President signed the Family Smoking
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act into law. The act grants FDA
important new authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing,
and distribution of tobacco products. I'm pleased to report
that, so far, FDA has met or exceeded the statutory deadlines
in the Tobacco Control Act.
During fiscal year 2011, we will continue to implement the
act, including overseeing and enforcing the reissuance of the
1996 rule to prevent smoking and smokeless tobacco use among
young people and proposing graphic health warning labels for
cigarette packages and advertising.
H1N1
Finally, I'd like to take the opportunity to report to the
subcommittee on FDA's response to the 2009 H1N1 influenza
pandemic. During the past year, key FDA accomplishments include
the licensure of five different H1N1 vaccines in record time.
These H1N1 vaccines faced the same stringent manufacturing,
quality, and oversight processes as seasonal influenza vaccine,
and now more than 70 million Americans have been safely
immunized.
FDA also authorized the emergency use of antiviral drugs in
circumstances for which they had not been licensed, but where
they might save lives. These decisions were based on careful
review of the scientific data for these products.
FDA also conducted an aggressive proactive strategy to
combat fraudulent H1N1 products. We issued more than 80 warning
letters, covering about 150 different products, and we achieved
a very high compliance rate in response to these actions.
So, FDA's fiscal year 2011 budget contains important
funding for vital public health priorities, including
transforming food safety, protecting patients, and advancing
regulatory science, as well as implementing the Tobacco Control
Act and many other critical FDA programs and activities.
Achieving all of this, and especially these identified
priorities, is possible because of your support for the work of
the Food and Drug Administration.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg
introduction
Chairman Kohl, Senator Brownback, and members of the Subcommittee,
I am Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Commissioner of Food and Drugs. I am pleased
to present the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA or agency). Joining me at today's hearing
is Patrick McGarey, FDA's Director of the FDA Office of Budget and
Norris Cochran, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget at the Department
of Health and Human Services.
My testimony outlines FDA's fiscal year 2011 budget request and the
policy initiatives that we are advancing in our budget. I will also
summarize recent developments related to FDA actions to implement the
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, FDA's response to
the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and other initiatives at FDA.
fiscal year 2010 budget
The funding that you appropriated for fiscal year 2010 shows the
depth of your commitment to FDA's public health mission and the health
of the American public. On behalf of all Americans who benefit from the
work of the FDA, thank you for your support.
This funding allowed FDA to make progress in a wide range of areas.
For example, in the Foods Program, we are hiring and training new
inspectors, improving our scientific and technical capacity, initiating
a wide range of new State and international partnerships and--working
with industry, consumer advocates, and others--laying the foundation
for a shift to a food safety approach focused on prevention. We also
started critical work on front of package labeling, an effort that will
help American families better understand the nutritional content of
foods.
Fiscal year 2010 funding allowed FDA to aggressively engage with
our HHS partners and industry in the public health response to the 2009
H1N1 influenza pandemic. We supported the effort to rapidly develop and
deploy safe vaccines, antiviral medicines, and diagnostic tests that
were so vital in the public health response.
For drugs and biologics, we began the first phase of the Sentinel
system, a distributed network of electronic health data that can track
the safety of medical products once they reach the market and quickly
investigate potential safety signals. For medical devices, we released
key guidance defining a path for more efficient and effective clinical
trials.
In the Tobacco Program, we established the new Center for Tobacco
Products, implemented a ban on cigarettes with characterizing fruit and
candy flavors, and established a program of registration and listing.
We also began a process that will make FDA much more transparent to
the American public and to the industries that we regulate. The FDA
Transparency Initiative responds to President Obama's Executive Order
on open government and the transparency priorities that Secretary
Sebelius is advancing.
As part of our Transparency Initiative, FDA held two public
meetings, launched a transparency blog, and opened a docket--efforts
that received more than 900 suggestions from the public.
In January, FDA launched ``FDA Basics,'' the first phase of the
Transparency Initiative. As one observer of the agency commented,
``[t]he initiative can go a long way toward educating the public about
what FDA does--and how--and also provide industry with realtime answers
to their daily challenges, ultimately improving product quality and
patient safety.'' Another said, ``[i]t is really well put together,
clear and works quite well. . . . The site is not only supportive of
transparency, but is highly instructive and educational.''
The next two phases of our transparency efforts are well underway,
and our goal is to provide communication with the public and industry
about FDA actions and the basis for FDA decisions.
We are also developing a major performance management initiative,
which will provide additional access to Congress and the public about
the activities and progress on more than 50 FDA offices.
fda 2011 budget request
Overview
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget includes $4,000,000,000 for
FDA programs to protect and promote public health. This represents an
increase of $756,000,000 for FDA programs, which includes $601,000,000
for statutory increases for user fee programs in current law and four
new user fees to support public health priorities.
details of the fiscal year 2011 budget
Transforming Food Safety Initiative
For fiscal year 2011, FDA proposes an increase of $326,300,000 for
Transforming Food Safety. This increase includes $87,800,000 in budget
authority and $238,500,000 for three new user fees related to food
safety: Food Inspection and Registration User Fees, Reinspection User
Fees for food facilities and Export Certification User Fees for food
and feed products. The funding for Transforming Food Safety includes
the budget amendment of $8,000,000 that the Administration recommended
on February 12, 2010.
The Transforming Food Safety Initiative reflects President Obama's
vision of a new food safety system to protect the American public. The
initiative is based on three core principles announced in July 2009 by
the President's Food Safety Working Group: prioritizing prevention,
strengthening surveillance and enforcement, and improving response and
recovery.
The fiscal year 2011 resources for Transforming Food Safety
demonstrate that food safety is a national priority. It reflects the
consensus among consumers, industry and experts that our food safety
system needs fundamental change to prevent illness and restore public
confidence.
With the fiscal year 2011 increases, FDA will set standards for
safety, expand laboratory capacity and pilot track and trace
technology. FDA will also strengthen import safety and improve data
collection and food risk analysis. Most importantly, the fiscal year
2011 resources allow FDA to establish a foundation for an integrated
national food safety system focused on prevention.
During fiscal year 2011, FDA will hire 718 additional full time
equivalent (FTE) staff to expand programs that protect America's food
supply. The hiring by FDA food safety programs includes more than 425
new FTE in our field operations, of which 132 FTE will be new food
inspectors in the field operations of our Office of Regulatory Affairs.
Among those 132 FTE, 3 are funded by budget authority, 99 are funded by
food registration and inspection user fees, and 30 are funded by
reinspection fees.
When fully trained and deployed, the 132 new inspectors will
annually conduct the following additional field activities, based on
budget authority and user fee funding proposed for Transforming Food
Safety:
--1,900 domestic food safety inspections;
--150 foreign food inspections;
--1,000 domestic food and animal feed program reinspections;
--200 domestic tissue residue inspections for illegal drug residues
in meat and poultry; and
--3,000 samples for analysis in FDA laboratories.
The Transforming Food Safety Initiative will also allow FDA to fund
the cost of living pay adjustment for FDA professionals that conduct
food safety activities and pay higher rent and related facility costs.
In addition to the priorities listed above, fiscal year 2011
resources for Transforming Food Safety support the following domestic
and foreign activities that implement Food Safety Working Group
priorities.
Prioritizing Prevention
FDA will issue guidances and establish new, binding standards to
help prevent foodborne illness and reduce food risks. The standards
include new controls to prevent food safety risks associated with fresh
produce and other commodities, standards for food inspections, and
standards for collecting and analyzing food samples.
FDA will conduct audits of its regulatory and public health
partners. FDA audits will evaluate inspection, investigation, sample
collection and analysis, enforcement, response, recovery, and outreach
activities. The audits will measure performance against FDA food safety
standards. FDA will also strengthen collaboration with foreign
regulatory bodies to evaluate and leverage inspection data. FDA will
begin to develop an updated inventory of foreign facilities to support
more foreign inspections.
FDA will begin to establish a modern import safety program. FDA
will develop standards to evaluate food safety systems in foreign
countries. FDA will also continue third party certification efforts and
develop a registry of all importers. When fully implemented, FDA's
import safety program will result in greater oversight of imported
foods and provide greater assurance they meet safety standards
comparable to those required for domestically produced foods.
Strengthening Surveillance and Enforcement
FDA State liaisons will communicate essential information on food
safety standards and priorities throughout the integrated food safety
system. FDA will also develop and implement a national food inspection
and sampling work plan. Working with the States, FDA will increase
surveillance and sampling of feed and feed ingredients. FDA will
improve its analysis of inspection results by establishing a system to
electronically exchange inspection data.
FDA will improve risk analysis and research for food and feed
safety. FDA will expand its ability to identify products at highest
risk for contamination. FDA will use this information to better target
and prioritize food and feed safety sampling and inspection. As one
tool for food risk analysis, FDA will enhance the food registry used to
report problems with foods.
FDA will expand the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring
System (ARMS). Expanding NARMS means more surveillance and monitoring
of commodities such as seafood and animal feed. Working with CDC and
USDA, FDA will also adapt NARMS to monitor emerging pathogens in food
animals and retail foods of animal origin.
FDA will increase its laboratory capacity. FDA will establish a new
forensic microbiological laboratory and conduct more food safety
sampling and surveillance.
Improving Response and Recovery
FDA will conduct pilot studies with industry of track and trace
technology.
FDA will improve response and recovery with expanded lab capacity.
FDA will develop technology to reduce the time needed to screen for
pathogens. We will focus our energies on priority pathogens and work to
reduce screening time to one to two days, compared to the current 5 to
10 days.
FDA will invest in enterprise information technology (IT) systems
to transform food safety. Funding for IT systems will also allow FDA to
establish, collect and support the proposed new Food Registration and
Inspection User Fees Program.
FDA will provide essential support to food program offices. This
support will allow food safety programs to achieve priority public
health objectives.
Results for Transforming Food Safety
Fiscal year 2011 funding for the Transforming Food Safety
initiative will allow FDA to deliver the promise of improved food
safety. With this fiscal year 2011 investment, FDA will steadily reduce
illnesses caused by contamination of the food supply in the years to
come. In summary, Transforming safety will allow FDA to:
--Reduce the number of foodborne illnesses by heightening the focus
on preventing harmful contamination;
--Identify sources of risk in the food safety system through expanded
data collection and analysis and collaboration with partners in
other Federal agencies and with, States, international
agencies, and industry;
--Improve industry compliance with food safety standards through more
frequent inspection and expanded use of microbial testing and
other modern tools;
--Reduce time to detect and respond to outbreaks through improved
staffing and procedures and collaboration with the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and State, local, and
international colleagues;
--Establish stronger links between performance outcomes and resource
investments by developing and tracking appropriate measures of
progress on food safety;
--Better integrate Federal, State, local, and foreign food safety
efforts by removing barriers to full collaboration, leveraging
of information, and expanding current partnership efforts.
Protecting Patients Initiative
For fiscal year 2011, FDA proposes an increase of $100,800,000 for
Protecting Patients. This increase includes $49,400,000 in budget
authority and $51,400,000 for two new user fees: Generic Drug User Fees
and Reinspection User Fees for medical product facilities.
The Protecting Patients Initiative advances Obama Administration
priorities for safe, quality healthcare for all Americans. The
resources in this initiative support new tools and partnerships to
enhance the safety of increasingly complex drugs, devices, vaccines,
human tissues and America's blood supply.
This initiative will modernize FDA's approach to the safety of
medical products at a time when the number of drugs, devices and
biologics manufactured abroad is increasing dramatically. With these
resources, FDA can act as a strong and smart regulator and address
medical product safety challenges in the years ahead.
The Protecting Patients Initiative focuses on four vital areas:
import safety, high-risk products, partnerships for patient safety, and
generic drug review.
During fiscal year 2011, FDA will hire 215 FTE staff for programs
that protect patients and support the safety and effectiveness of
medical devices, human and animal drugs, and vaccines, blood and other
biologics. This includes hiring 85 FTE in FDA field operations, of
which 40 will be new ORA medical product inspectors. Among those 40
FTE, 13 are funded by budget authority, 21 are funded by reinspection
fees, and six are funded by generic drug user fees.
When fully trained and deployed, the 40 FTE will annually conduct
more than 600 foreign and domestic risk-based inspections. This
includes more than 225 inspections funded by budget authority and more
than 380 inspections funded by reinspections and generic drug user
fees. These include inspections of foreign and domestic drug, device,
radiological health, and biologic manufacturers, as well as bioresearch
monitoring inspections to protect patients and ensure data integrity in
clinical trials. The Protecting Patients Initiative funds the cost of
living pay adjustment for FDA professionals that conduct food safety
activities. The Initiative also funds higher rent and related facility
costs and provides essential support to allow medical product programs
to achieve their public health priorities.
In addition to the activities listed above, fiscal year 2011
resources for Protecting Patients support the following priorities.
Import Safety
Thousands of critical medical products are manufactured outside of
the United States. Increased funding for import safety will allow FDA
to better understand and respond to the growing challenge of foreign
manufacturing and globalization, including counterfeit products.
FDA will launch an electronic drug registration and listing system
to stop imports of illegal drug. FDA will also work more closely with
trusted foreign regulators to monitor drug manufacturing facilities.
FDA will increase foreign inspections. FDA will identify and
inspect the highest risk foreign facilities. FDA will also protect
patients through increased inspections of human subject trials.
FDA will review and use third party International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) audits of foreign device manufacturers. As a
result, FDA will leverage device inspections conducted for foreign
governments.
Safety of High-Risk Products
Drugs, devices and biologics are becoming increasingly complex. To
protect the American public, FDA will develop additional capacity to
assess the safety of these medical products.
FDA will improve the safety of the blood supply, vaccines, human
tissues, and cord blood. To counter threats to the blood supply, FDA
will improve the ability to prevent, detect and monitor for infectious
agents. FDA will also improve its ability to analyze and respond to
manufacturing deviations. FDA will also build additional capacity to
identify and respond to adverse events and adverse reactions associated
with biological products. FDA will improve vaccine safety through
guidance for industry and better understanding mechanisms of adverse
events.
FDA will begin to build a National Medical Device Registry. FDA
will begin a pilot project to link unique identifiers for medical
devices with electronic health data. The result will be improved
patient safety by creating a National Medical Device Registry.
Partnerships for Patient Safety
To meet its public health responsibilities, FDA must interact and
collaborate with many public and private entities in a medical system
that is committed to safety.
FDA will expand postmarketing surveillance systems for medical
product safety. This investment includes support for the next stage in
FDA's Sentinel Initiative. The goal of the Sentinel Initiative is to
use large databases to fairly and quickly assess the safety of medical
products.
FDA will partner with public and private organizations to reduce
unnecessary adverse events, with emphasis on special populations. FDA
will also work with the private sector to reduce unnecessary medical
radiation exposure.
FDA will improve pediatric drug and device safety. Working with
international and domestic partners, FDA will identify medical products
that are safe for children and those that pose special risks.
FDA will improve the safety of animal drugs. FDA will hire and
train scientific staff to review adverse experience reports and require
prompt corrective action.
Generic Drug Review
FDA will Increase its Capacity to Review Generic Drugs
Applications: FDA will hire additional staff to support generic drug
review.
Results for Protecting Patients
FDA's Protecting Patients Initiative will have a significant impact
on public health in the United States. This science-based strategy will
build new and greater safety capabilities, resulting in:
--Reduced number of import safety emergencies;
--Fewer serious adverse events linked to medical products; and
--Early identification of major safety problems with drugs, devices
and biologics.
This initiative will permit FDA to rise to the challenge of
protecting patients in the 21st century. The initiative supports
critical international efforts, upgrades to FDA capacity, and essential
partnerships with the private sector. With the fiscal year 2011
resources, the Protecting Patients Initiative will lead to:
--improved import safety program for medical products;
--increased capacity to conduct inspections;
--improved safety of blood, tissue, and vaccines;
--improved data collection and risk analysis for medical products;
and
--enhanced assessments of postmarket safety.
Advancing Regulatory Science for Public Health Initiative
For fiscal year 2011, FDA proposes an increase of $25,000,000 in
budget authority for Advancing Regulatory Science. The Advancing
Regulatory Science initiative is the backbone that supports all other
FDA activities, including transforming food safety and protecting
patients. At FDA, science is at the heart of everything we do from
keeping the blood supply safe, protecting Americans from global and
emerging infectious diseases, supporting the development of new food
and medical technologies, to bringing new treatments to patients.
Advancing Regulatory Science for Public Health reflects President
Obama's commitment to harness the power of science to benefit America.
In his April 2009 address to the National Academy of Sciences, the
President declared, ``science is more essential for our prosperity, our
security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it
has ever been before.''
During the past two decades, U.S. research investments have
dramatically expanded our understanding of biology and disease. Yet the
development of new therapies has been in decline, and the costs of
bringing them to market have soared. As a result, we have experienced
lost opportunities to improve the effectiveness of U.S. medicine and
the success of the biotechnology industry.
Today, FDA is relying on 20th century regulatory science to
evaluate 21st medical products. Regulatory science is needed to provide
better tools, standards, and pathways to evaluate products under
development. It also serves to create efficiencies in the development
process, and improve product safety, quality, and manufacturing. The
Advancing Regulatory Science initiative represents the first
comprehensive effort to modernize regulatory science at FDA.
Stem cells and personalized medicine are two examples of areas that
could change the way we treat many diseases. Stem cells offer hope for
treating patients with neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson's
and Alzheimer's disease. For the promise of stem cells to come to
fruition, FDA must develop standards for stem cell therapies so that
they can be produced reliably and safely. In the area of personalized
medicine, FDA must work collaboratively to identify markers that can
predict whether a patient will respond to certain cancer therapies. FDA
must use cutting edge science to validate these tests for use in
clinical practice.
In addition to helping patients benefit from biomedical advances,
improvements in regulatory science will also support better assessment
of drug and device safety, better tools for food safety, and better
understanding of how to reduce the enormous public health harm of
tobacco products.
The Advancing Regulatory Science for Public Health initiative
focuses on three broad themes: science leadership and coordination,
core capacity, and modern standards for evaluating products.
Science Leadership and Coordination
FDA will strengthen scientific leadership. The Office of the Chief
Scientist (OCS) will support FDA and its centers with dedicated and
expert scientific leadership. OCS will work with the centers to
prioritize, oversee, support and coordinate key scientific investments
at FDA.
Core Capacities: Infrastructure, Workforce, Collaboration
FDA will build core scientific capacity in the field of
nanotechnology.
Nanotechnology holds great promise in many areas. Examples include
targeting drugs to where they can do the most good and least harm and
making improved material for medical devices. Yet, nanoscale materials
may interact very differently with biological systems and require
special methods to assess safety and effectiveness. FDA will support
science focused on the sound evaluation of nanotechnology-based
products. The goal is to realize their promise while protecting
patients and consumers.
FDA will support the development and evaluation of products from
stem cell innovation. The FDA investment will support the transfer of
stem cell discoveries from the bench to the bedside.
FDA will recruit next generation scientific staff. FDA will begin
targeted recruitment in essential areas of emerging science where FDA
has an expertise gap.
FDA will address science issues that support a National Medical
Device Registry.
FDA will begin a pilot project to link unique device identifiers
with health-related electronic data to create a National Medical Device
Registry. The Registry will improve our understanding of the risk
benefit profile of higher risk devices.
FDA will promote scientific collaboration through the Critical Path
Initiative.
Fiscal year 2011 investments in FDA's Critical Path Initiative will
allow FDA to foster partnerships that transform product development and
evaluation sciences, advance personalized medicine, support meeting
unmet public health needs, and better predict and prevent safety risks
early in development.
Medical Product Regulatory Standards
FDA will update review standards and provide regulatory pathways
for biosimilars. FDA will establish regulatory guidance to provide a
scientifically sound and safe pathway to characterize and develop
biosimilars.
FDA will increase its ability to regulate animal biotechnology
products. FDA will hire and train staff to strengthen our knowledge
base and thereby support the review and potential approval of animal
biotechnology products.
FDA will promote development of healthy foods and encourage healthy
food choices. FDA will use data from well-designed studies to support a
modernized food label to encourage Americans to eat healthier diets.
The Initiative also funds rent and related facility costs to
conduct initiative activities and provides essential support to allow
medical product programs to achieve their public health priorities.
Tobacco Control Act
On June 22, 2009, the President signed H.R. 1256, the Family
Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act), into
law. The Tobacco Control Act grants FDA important new authority to
regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco
products.
FDA's goals for the tobacco program include:
--preventing youth from using tobacco and helping adults who use
tobacco to quit;
--promoting public understanding of the harmful and potentially
harmful constituents of tobacco products;
--developing a science base for tobacco regulation; and
--beginning meaningful tobacco product regulation to reduce the toll
of tobacco-related disease, disability, and death.
In September 2009, after a national search, I selected Lawrence
Deyton, M.S.P.H, M.D., as Director of the Center for Tobacco Products.
Dr. Deyton is an expert on veterans' health issues, public health, and
tobacco control and prevention. He also is a clinical professor of
medicine and health policy at George Washington University School of
Medicine and Health Sciences.
During fiscal year 2010, FDA made substantial progress in
establishing the tobacco program and implementing initial steps under
the Act.
To date, FDA has met or exceeded the statutory requirements of the
Tobacco Control Act, including:
--establishing the tobacco products user fee program to support FDA's
tobacco program;
--issuing and enforcing a ban on cigarettes with certain
characterizing flavors, including fruit and spice flavors;
--publishing a guidance document related to tobacco product
establishment registration and product listing and began
tobacco industry registration with FDA;
--publishing a guidance document describing the requirements for
providing listings of all ingredients used in making
cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and certain other tobacco
products and began accepting tobacco product ingredient and
constituent listings;
--establishing an FDA program to assist small tobacco product
manufacturers; and
--creating the Tobacco Product Scientific Advisory Committee.
FDA is in the midst of an aggressive recruitment and hiring
program, with a goal of hiring 370 FTEs in the tobacco program by
fiscal year 2011. I am pleased to report that FDA has met or exceeded
the statutory deadlines in the Tobacco Control Act. During fiscal year
2011, FDA will continue to make progress in tobacco product regulation.
We will learn from the successes of our international counterparts that
also regulate tobacco. We expect to implement a number of key steps in
the next year. These steps will include reissuing and enforcing the
1996 rule to prevent smoking and smokeless tobacco use among young
people and proposing graphic health warning labels for cigarette
packages and advertising.
New User Fees
The new user fees proposed in FDA's fiscal year 2011 budget will
facilitate the review of generic drugs and enhance FDA's ability to
register and inspect food and feed manufacturing and processing
facilities. New user fees will also allow FDA to reinspect facilities
that fail to meet good manufacturing practices and other safety
requirements and allow FDA to collect fees when it issues export
certifications for food and feed.
fda response to the 2009 h1n1 influenza pandemic
I would also like to take this opportunity to report to the
committee on FDA's response to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. As we
reported to you last year, FDA established an incident command approach
that allowed us to work across government, internationally and with the
private sector to rapidly mobilize emergency response.
Key accomplishments include:
Licensing Safe and Effective Influenza Vaccines.--FDA worked to
facilitate development, production, and availability of vaccines. FDA
licensed pandemic influenza vaccines from all five U.S. licensed
influenza vaccine manufacturers. These pandemic vaccines were subject
to the same stringent manufacturing and quality oversight processes in
place for seasonal influenza vaccines. More than 70 million Americans
have been immunized with these vaccines, based on CDC's coverage survey
estimates. Extensive safety review involving active surveillance
systems that have captured information from approximately 4 million
patients has found the vaccine to have the same excellent safety
profile as the seasonal influenza vaccines.
Authorizing Emergency Measures.--Our physicians and scientists
worked tirelessly to facilitate the availability of antiviral
medications to patients. FDA authorized 13 laboratory tests, 3 drugs,
and certain types or models of respirators, known as N95 respirators,
to provide tools to doctors across the country to fight the novel H1N1
influenza. For example, FDA authorized the emergency of use of an
unapproved intravenous antiviral drug, Peramivir, to treat certain
hospitalized patients. FDA's work on dosing of Tamiflu in children
under the age of 1 year was adopted by countries around the world. In
addition, FDA authorized the use of antiviral medications that
otherwise might have been thrown away because they were beyond their
labeled expiration dates. Our efforts on expiring drugs helped prevent
shortages of essential medicines for patients.
Cracking Down on H1N1 Fraud.--FDA established the 2009 H1N1
Consumer Protection Team that conducted an aggressive, proactive
strategy to combat fraudulent 2009 H1N1 products. To date, the team has
sent more than 80 Warning Letters to more than 85 Web sites, covering
about 150 different products purporting to be dietary supplements,
medical devices, drugs or biologics. These Warning Letters have
resulted in a compliance rate of about 80 percent.
FDA is pleased to have worked so closely with its sister agencies
under the leadership of the Department of Health and Human Services in
the pandemic response. We will continue our work to pave the way for
manufacturers to develop faster and more reliable vaccines, antiviral
medications, and diagnostic test.
conclusion
The FDA fiscal year 2011 budget of $4,000,000,000 contains
important funding increases for important public health priorities:
Transforming Food Safety, Protecting Patients, Advancing Regulatory
Sciences and Implementing the Tobacco Reform Act. Achieving these
priorities is possible because of your support for the work of the Food
and Drug Administration.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer your
questions.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, for your fine statement, Dr.
Hamburg.
You've been at the FDA for nearly a year now, and I assume
that it has been fulfilling as well as challenging.
VISION FOR FDA
After a year, what have you learned about the FDA? What's
working? What would you change? What is your vision for the
agency, and where do you want it to be in 5 years and beyond?
How does the Performance Manage Initiative you discussed in
your opening statement play into this, Dr. Hamburg?
Dr. Hamburg. There's a lot of questions--very, very
important questions. I have found, since being here--it's been
only about 8 months, but who's counting--that FDA is an
extraordinary agency, you know, with an array of professional
scientists, lawyers, policy analysts and support staff that,
you know, are dedicated to the mission of protecting and
promoting health.
I have been struck much more deeply, since I've been in
this role, by how important and unique FDA is--that we are
responsible for a vast array of regulated products, and
products that affect every American every day, as you noted in
your opening statement.
If we cannot do our job, and do it well, there are not
other parts of government or other sectors of society that can
step in and backstop behind us. And that is why it is so
important to have a strong, fully functional FDA.
As the new FDA Commissioner, I feel a tremendous
responsibility to lead this agency fully into the 21st century.
I think I must be a strong advocate for the agency, explaining
to policymakers and the public about what we do, how we do it,
and why. I believe that I must work to ensure trust and
confidence in the work of the agency, and that includes being a
responsible steward of the resources given to us, and tracking
to make sure that we are using them widely and for the benefit
of the American people.
SCIENCE
I believe that now is the time for us to act aggressively
to strengthen science within the FDA, in partnerships with
external partners, so that we can bring the best possible
science to bear on our regulatory decisionmaking. And I believe
we have to respond to the globalized world we live in, and
recognize that products regulated by the FDA are coming in from
all over the globe, and that we have to effectively extend our
foreign presence, so that we can ensure safety.
Senator Kohl. Have you made any trips to any of these
foreign countries?
INTERNATIONAL TRIPS
Dr. Hamburg. I have made one international trip, so far,
and we are planning additional--I've made two international
trips--planning additional trips, as well. I've met with many
of my counterparts from other countries on their visits here,
as well, and have really made this area of strengthening our
presence internationally a very high priority, because the
world we live in is so increasingly complex and globalized. And
the supply chains, whether it's food products or medical
products, go around the globe, and we know that this,
potentially, entails serious safety concerns.
FUNDING INCREASES
Senator Kohl. Dr. Hamburg, as I said in my opening
statement, and I'm sure you're fully aware, we have provided
FDA with very large funding increases over the past several
years. Your budget this year again includes one of the largest
increases in our bill, but it's only about one-half of the
increase that the Department has been receiving recently. How
would you respond to concerns that this budget reflects a
decrease in the priority the administration places on
modernizing and improving the FDA?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, I think we all recognize that these are
very difficult economic times and we have to operate in that
environment. I do think it's very, very important that we
continue sustained investments in the FDA for the reasons I
cited earlier, that we have a unique role to play, and it is
one that matters deeply to every American. So, you know, we
will continue to work, in every way possible, to perform the
programs and activities that are on our plate and to address
emerging new priorities. We hope that we will have the
opportunity, in the fiscal year 2011 budget, to continue to
expand in some key areas, as the budget reflects. And I'm eager
to work with you and with others to ensure, in the upcoming
fiscal year and in the years beyond, that we continue to
support FDA in its crucial mission.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Hamburg, let me show you a chart--and I think we've got
one laid out in front of you--for what I was talking about in
my opening statement of a bifurcation on the review process.
It's what we visited about it in my office, and we went and
took the liberty to give a couple of examples.
RARE DISEASES
I mentioned in my opening statement, there are some 7,000
rare diseases affecting nearly 30 million Americans, only 200
of which have any treatment at all. And what I'm suggesting to
you is that your standard process which is well established;
it's very expensive, I might add. I saw a 2005 review of it,
and said that, by FDA's own report, it costs somewhere between
$800 million to $1.7 billion to develop a new product. This is
a 2005 FDA report.
Diseases like Tay-Sachs disease affects approximately 1 in
112,000 live births. There are no treatments for it. A child
who's born with this--it's a genetic lipid storage defect--
usually dies by age 4. No treatment, whatsoever. Small market
potential for it.
Leigh's disease affects 1 in 36,000 live births.
Individuals typically live anywhere from a few years to the
mid-teens; and no treatment for it, whatsoever. The symptoms
associated with this are usually a loss of early control--head
control, walking, talking--becoming other problems, such as
irritability, loss of appetite, vomiting and seizures, and
there may be periods of sharp decline or temporary restoration
of some function. Eventually, the child may also have heart,
kidney, vision, breathing complications. These are tough
things, when they grab a family.
We all, as members, get people coming by our offices,
representing these rare and neglected diseases, and they're
always saying, ``Look, we want you to put more money into the
process,'' and we all want to do it, because you don't want to
hear of anybody having to face any sort of struggle or
circumstance like that. But, then the truth of the matter is,
we develop very few products for them, even if we pump a bunch
of money from here into it, because it's going to take $800
million to $1.7 billion to bring the product to market, and
that market is this thin; it's just not going to happen.
And that's why I would ask you to seriously consider
something that the FDA has done, on an ad hoc basis previously,
but instead, let's make this a separate category of review so
it's not just done on an ad hoc, ``Well we like this one, we're
not going to do that one. This one's important to us, or this
one has political impetus to us, that one doesn't.'' Just
create a separate category. Work with the disease population
groups to see if they're willing, as groups, to consider going
into this. Do a thorough review of it, and then set this
truncated category up. And it's known, going into it, this
isn't the same review that we're going to take on a common
disease--arthritis, diabetes, something where there's a large,
clear population.
I think you would get a huge amount of support for doing
something like this. I think you would get a lot of people
behind it. And I think it would stretch our dollars out to a
point where you would get action in 6,800 categories that have
no action now.
So, I'd ask how you would respond to that, please.
Dr. Hamburg. Well, thank you very much for this proposal,
and we will certainly look at it very seriously. And, you know,
the issues you raise are ones that are very meaningful to me,
personally and professionally, as well as to the agency. As I
mentioned to you when I met with you at an earlier time, I
shifted, in my career, from a career in academic medicine to
public service, because of watching the AIDS epidemic develop
while I trained as a medical student and became a resident in
internal medicine. And at that time, we had no treatments to
offer AIDS patients. And then new treatment options began to
emerge, and I went to work at NIH--National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases--to be part of that process of
trying to develop new therapies and trying to get them to
people who needed them.
You know, the opportunity that we have right now, in terms
of advances in science, combined with the growing public health
need for both rare and neglected diseases, I think, demands
that we take action and that we be innovative, if not
transformative, in how we approach it.
NEW REGULATORY PATHWAYS
So, I'm eager to work with you. I think that the program
that you've already helped to establish within FDA in response
to past legislation--section 740--has already gotten us on
track, in terms of beginning to really, in a focused way, to
look at: How do we develop new regulatory pathways? How do we
leverage advances in science and technology to make our
regulatory oversight as efficient and effective as possible?
And how do we think creatively, building on activities already
underway, such as the Orphan Drug Program, to look at various
incentives that exist or could be developed to try to, you
know, really catalyze activity in areas where there are limited
markets.
It's something that I know is of the highest priority
within the White House, as well. President Obama spoke to this
issue in his recent State of the Union Address, briefly, but he
did talk about the importance of developing new products to
address unmet public health needs.
So, we will work with you with enthusiasm. We will make
sure that the group--that the groups within FDA working on
implementing section 740 look very seriously at your proposal
here, and continue to work with you and your staff and others
to make, you know, real, meaningful, and sustainable progress
in this important area.
Senator Brownback. I can't think of anything you could do
that would give more hope to a large group of people that don't
have a whole lot of it right now. And it affects a lot of
people.
I've got several other questions I'd like to ask, but,
chairman, that's the primary issue, and I really hope--this is
my last year in the Senate--I really hope we can make some
progress on this. And I think it's within your power to move
this forward, in developing a proposal, putting it forward. I
think you would get a lot of support, and I'd love to be one
right there with you to try to move that forward, to give hope.
Dr. Hamburg. If I could just add, I think there's also a
huge opportunity here to work with sister regulatory agencies
around the world, because these are issues that do crosscut,
clearly. And, you know, if we can bring new, innovative
regulatory strategies and the best possible science to bear,
and also, you know, fully define the markets that do exist and
the incentives to bring the pharmaceutical and biotech industry
into developing products in these areas, you know, we can make
additional progress with that approach.
Senator Brownback. Thank you.
Thank you, chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Brownback.
Senator Mark Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for being here today, Dr. Hamburg. I
appreciated our visit on the phone last week.
NANOTECHNOLOGY
Let me talk a little bit about nanotechnology, and I'd like
to get your thoughts. I know that the FDA has proposed a $7.3
million line item to build core scientific capacity for
nanotechnology. I actually have a bill here that would do a
total of $25 million. And I guess my question for you--on that
$25 million--is, if we are able to get that bill passed and
make that money available, could you all spend it wisely?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, I have not seen that piece of
legislation, but, you know, clearly nanotechnology is an
emerging technology that holds great promise, in terms of
products--medical products, as well as cosmetics and food-
related issues. It's one where we want to fully explore the
opportunity, but we also want to study it carefully to ensure
that safety issues are adequately surfaced and addressed.
We have a program that is moving forward in the
nanotechnology area. As you may well know, the National Center
for Toxicological Research in Arkansas is a very important hub
in our nanotechnology research activities.
But, it cuts across every aspect of FDA work, in terms of
our product centers. So, I think that, yes, you know, there--
it's a very, very important emerging technology. We need to
deepen our understanding. And it's key to many areas of FDA
activities, so we would welcome the opportunity to work more
with you to see what we can do and how we should best do it.
Senator Pryor. Does FDA currently have the physical
infrastructure it needs--the physical labs, buildings, space,
and equipment, whatever that may be--to really, thoroughly
study nanotechnology, or is that still a work in progress?
Dr. Hamburg. You know, I think that we are always having to
evolve our capabilities as emerging technologies also evolve.
We do have a solid technical capability for nanotechnology, but
I would hesitate to try to address whether we have all of the
infrastructure that we need for our nanotechnology efforts. I
can certainly tell you that we need to bring on board more
expertise in the nanotechnology area. We also are working in
partnership with outside experts in this important arena to
strengthen our capacity. But, I think it's probably fair to say
that one always needs to be dynamic in these kinds of programs,
because the science itself is so dynamic.
SALMONELLA
Senator Pryor. Let me change subjects on you, if I can.
In the last few weeks, there's been a salmonella outbreak,
and apparently it was related to hydrolyzed vegetable protein.
And my understanding is, the administration's budget adds money
for--to identify such outbreaks. But, does FDA--are you--do you
feel like you have the right resources and the right
capabilities in place to monitor things like salmonella and
these other type of outbreaks that you see in the food system?
Dr. Hamburg. Strengthening food safety is a huge priority
for FDA and for the administration and for the Nation. We have
experienced the real-world implications of gaps in food safety
and a food safety system that's oriented toward addressing
problems once they occur, rather than preventing them in the
first place, and that's what we are dedicated to doing.
Senator Pryor. And not to interrupt you, but, as I
understand, there's a President's Food Safety Working Group? Is
that----
Dr. Hamburg. Yes. That is--the Food Safety Working Group is
very active. It was established by the President, I think
actually at the same time that he announced my nomination. And
they've identified a number of critical activities and also a
focus on prevention, strengthening surveillance and
enforcement, and response and recovery.
FOOD SAFETY
There is a piece of legislation that's pending, on the
Senate side, to strengthen food safety, which we are very
supportive of, because it would bring additional authorities
and resources for the FDA to continue to develop our food
safety programs and to truly transform our food safety system
as it needs to be to address the challenges before us. But,
even without that legislation, we are moving forward in key
ways to reorient the system toward prevention, to enhance
inspection, to try to really get a better handle on how to
track and trace food-borne outbreaks, and working, importantly,
in partnership with our counterparts at the State and local
level, and also, again, working internationally, because import
safety is such a concern. But, we do look forward to the
consideration by the Senate of the food safety bill, because
that would really dramatically enhance our position with
respect to making the kinds of meaningful and enduring changes
that we need for food safety.
Senator Pryor. The last question I have, really, is about
the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR). And I
know that you've attempted to come down there previously, but--
I don't remember if it was a snowstorm or whatever, but you
couldn't make it, and we certainly would love for you to come
down and see that again, whenever it works in everybody's
schedule.
NCTR
But, is the FDA doing everything possible to assure that
the high quality science at NCTR is relied upon by other FDA
labs rather than duplicating the capabilities elsewhere?
Dr. Hamburg. NCTR represents a very unique resource for
FDA, and one that we rely on, and one that I certainly value.
It enables us to build fundamental research capacity that has
implications that cut across our various product centers and to
do, you know, really cutting-edge scientific work in some key
areas, whether it's the establishment of a genomics lab that's
really helping us think about how we can use a deepened
understanding of genetics and genetic traits to target
therapies better and to understand the interaction of lifestyle
factors and genetics as we think about medical products; some
of the bio-imaging capabilities that have been developed there
that can help us develop new kinds of markers to assess product
effectiveness and to support activities across a range of
programs at FDA--the activities that they're doing in terms of
toxicology research, per se, and safety that are so important,
especially as we're looking more deeply at a range of
environmental exposures, issues like BPA; and, of course, you
know, what we talked about with nanotechnology--they represent
a key hub in those efforts. So, it's really a unique, highly
valued resource.
I'm looking forward to my visit down there. But, in the
meantime, I've been working closely with members of the NCTR
staff and its director, and they are very much, while at a
distance, integrated into our work at FDA.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Pryor.
Senator Byron Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Dr. Hamburg, welcome, and----
Dr. Hamburg. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Dr. Hamburg, I want to visit with you about
the issue of importation of prescription drugs, perhaps not a
surprise to you.
IMPORTATION
Last December, I and Senator Snowe, along with 30 other
cosponsors, after working for a number of years, were preparing
to have a vote on the importation of FDA-approved prescription
drugs--only FDA-approved prescription drugs. And the day before
the vote, you sent a letter to Senator Brownback and Senator
Carper; and, in the letter, you indicated some concern about
the legislation. You indicated, however, that the
administration supports a program to allow Americans to buy
safe and effective drugs from other countries, and you're
beginning working with stakeholders to accomplish that.
This has been a long and tortured trail, probably 10 years,
in which the pharmaceutical industry has prevented the American
people from accessing FDA-approved identical drugs that are
sold for a fraction of the price in most other countries in the
world.
So, this is an issue, I think, of freedom for the American
people. They don't want to buy tainted drugs or counterfeit
drugs, but if Lipitor is made in Ireland and put in a sealed
container and sent various places in the world, why should the
American consumer be paying triple the price? Why should they
not have access to that FDA-approved drug made in a plant
inspected by the FDA, and so on?
So, I guess the first question is--you indicate you support
a program to allow Americans to buy safe and effective drugs.
Are you working to make that happen? And if so, what kind of
work is underway at FDA to assure that that could be the case?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, we do very much care about helping
Americans get access to important drugs for their health, and
we also care very much about ensuring safety. And, with you, we
want to work toward finding better strategies. As I think you
know, in fiscal year 2010, and again in the proposed fiscal
year 2011 budget, money has been put aside--$5 million each
time--for developing strategies and examining and analyzing the
safety issues with a broadened drug importation strategy. There
are genuine safety concerns, and that's what we're trying to
address.
Many of the drugs that we're talking about, in terms of
importation, are not drugs that are identical. They're----
Senator Dorgan. Let's deal with identical drugs, however.
Let's just talk about identical drugs.
LIPITOR
Dr. Hamburg. Well, Lipitor is one example where it really
is the same product, as I understand it. But, many of the drugs
are not necessarily bioequivalent. They may have the same
product name and be the same product class, but the formulation
may not be bioequivalent, the dosing formulation may be
different.
Senator Dorgan. I understand----
LABELING
Dr. Hamburg. There are labeling issues. There are issues
about our being able to really assure proper manufacturing
practices. All of those things really matter, and so we need to
have a program that is doable, that will enable us to able to
assure those kinds of issues for the American people.
Senator Dorgan. Dr. Hamburg, but in the second paragraph of
your letter last December, you talked about, ``Importing non-
FDA-approved drugs represents four potential risks.'' No one is
talking about importing non-FDA-approved drugs. And the things
you've just raised, labeling and so on--our staffs met with the
FDA and the FDA staff and said, ``Identify any concerns and
technical issues you've had.'' We dramatically changed our bill
to address all of those issues.
And if you will just bear with me for a moment, let's take
the drug that is identical. Let's reintroduce the bill, with
only an identical drug, made, in this case, by an American
manufacturer in an Irish plant and sent in various places of
the world, and the American consumer has the opportunity to
spend double or triple the price in order to access it.
Is there a way for us--in our legislation, we have batch
lots, we have pedigree, things that don't now exist, even in
today's drug supply. You're familiar with the Heparin issue,
right? The tainted medicine----
Dr. Hamburg. Of course.
HEPARIN
Senator Dorgan [continuing]. With Heparin that's made in
pig farms in China that no inspector has ever visited. So, I
understand all of the scare stuff that the pharmaceutical
industry raises about this, but I'm talking about an identical
drug made in an FDA-approved plant, with batch-lot and pedigree
attached, and so on. Couldn't we agree that, at least in those
circumstances, we could at least do a pretty good job that
would assure the American consumer that they are--what they are
buying is exactly what everyone else is purchasing, for a
fraction of the price?
Dr. Hamburg. You know, we share your concerns. We want to
work to try to establish programs that can assure safety of
drugs and medical products that are imported into this country.
It's a hugely important issue and a high priority. There are,
you know, real logistical concerns, very resource-intensive
strategies that are outlined in the legislation that, you know,
would be very, very difficult for the FDA to actually--to
implement. But, I think that there are ways that we can
approach these issues, and I think, you know, we need to work
with you and others in order to really--as we pursue this
planning effort, this----
PROGRAM TO IMPORT DRUGS
Senator Dorgan. Is there an end date on this effort? I
mean, do you have a time by which you want to accomplish the
goal--the administration's goal of allowing Americans to buy
safe and effective drugs in other countries?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, I think that we are moving forward, in
terms of the work that we're doing--the analyses and the
development of different types of strategies, and modeling
those options for how much they would assure safety--trying to
get a better sense of what are the issues, in terms of drugs
that are being--while the drug may be approved for use in the
United States, the drug that's coming in to people ordering
these drugs on the Web site are not those drugs that are
necessarily the FDA-approved drugs. That's----
Senator Dorgan. Well, that's a----
Dr. Hamburg [continuing]. One of the huge concerns that we
have.
And we know--you know, I was----
Senator Dorgan. Yeah, that----
Dr. Hamburg [continuing]. Recently up at the border offices
at JFK and saw, you know, the products coming in from all over
the world, some of them with a Canadian maple leaf, you know,
to suggest that they were coming from Canadian pharmacies, but
they were not. And the quality cannot be assured.
So, it's a big issue. It's complicated. We ultimately
want--our mission is to be able to provide Americans with
access to safe and effective drugs in as timely and low-cost
way as possible.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, let me ask if we might--if
the subcommittee might request of Dr. Hamburg that she submit
to us what they are doing, with respect to this planning, and
what the timeliness might be.
And let me say this. I--look I supported your nomination.
I'm glad you're where you are. I think you are a terrific
public servant, and you offering yourself to serve this country
is an important thing. So, I--but I was upset in December,
because, even in the last answer, you deftly changed the
subject, and I don't want to lose an argument we're not having.
We're not having a debate about medicine that's coming in
that might or might not be counterfeit. We're having a
discussion about whether--and I'm using Lipitor just as an
example--whether the company that produces Lipitor in a plant
in Ireland, with a batch lot and a pedigree and the safety that
ought to exist now for American consumers--whether those
consumers ought to have the freedom to access that FDA-approved
drug made in an FDA-approved plant--same pill, put in the same
bottle, sent to three places, except the American consumer pays
triple the cost.
This is not rocket science. Europe has done it for 20
years. If Europe can do it, we can do it. And I would hope that
we--you and I and others--can approach this on the basis of
saying, ``How do we accomplish this with complete safety--which
I think exists in our bill--for the American people?''
So, I'm very anxious to engage with you and your staff, and
Senator Brownback and anybody else that has questions about
this, so that we can support the American consumer, here, to be
able to access FDA-approved drugs that are being sold around
the world--in some cases, for one-sixth the price; in Lipitor,
it's one-half to one-third of the price. And I just think it's
an important issue.
So, thanks for indulging this discussion. You do a lot of
other important things. It's very--and I appreciate the
chairman's work and the subcommittee's work with the FDA. We
want to get you the funding you need. We want you to succeed.
Thank you very much.
SAFETY AND ACCESS
Dr. Hamburg. Well, I appreciate that, and I do look forward
to working with you and others on this important issue of
safety and access.
Senator Kohl. Just to pursue that, are there powerful
political interests and lobbying interests involved here that
prevent us from bringing these drugs to the American public at
prices that are being paid around the world--much, much less
than what we're paying here? And, as you know, I'm sure, and as
Senator Dorgan has said, and which he has pursued so well over
the years, we're paying double and triple and quadruple the
price for some of the most popular drugs here in the United
States than people are paying all around the world. Now, I'm
sure that that causes you great concern and arouses your strong
interest. And as the head of the FDA, of course, you can play a
pivotal role in helping us bring these drugs to the American
consumer for the equivalent price that are being paid around
the world. Is that one of your missions?
BIOEQUIVALENTS
Dr. Hamburg. You know, very much front and center is--a
mission--is to be able to assure access to safe and effective
medicines for the American people. You know, this is a very,
very challenging area, though, in terms of being able to assure
safety. And for the FDA, that is, honestly, the issue that
motivates our actions and concerns. I am not the first FDA
Commissioner to raise these issues. FDA Commissioners,
regardless of administration, over, you know, many years now,
have echoed these same concerns. And it does reflect the
complexity of trying to assure, especially in the world of
Internet sales, that the products that are being purchased are
what they purport to be, and being able to assure that, while a
product may be FDA-approved for use in the United States, when
that same product is actually manufactured elsewhere, it is not
manufactured with the exact same specifications that it's
manufactured for use in the United States, and that can have
very important implications for patients. If it's a different
formulation, it may have different bioequivalence, it may
require a different dosing schedule, it may be formulated even
with other components. And, of course, the labeling for use may
be different from what FDA reviews and approves.
So, we need to have a program that can really get into that
level of analysis to assure that patients get what they need,
that their healthcare providers, as well as the patients,
understand what may be different about these drugs, even though
they have the same name, so that they're used properly.
COUNTERFEIT DRUGS
And then there's the problem of outright counterfeit drugs,
which is an enormous problem, and it is growing. And so, I
think, you know, that this whole arena of import safety could
not be more important and pressing to the work of the FDA and
to the safety and security of the American people, and I hope
that we can work on all of this together, because it is such a
huge and urgent challenge.
STATE COLLABORATION
Senator Kohl. Dr. Hamburg, I was happy, last August, that
you were able to come to Wisconsin and visit with folks in my
own State about food safety efforts, including people in
Wisconsin government as well as academia. I believe it was a
day that was well spent by you; and a major theme of that day,
as you know, was collaboration.
States inspect millions of food establishments each year,
and investigate thousands of food-borne illness outbreaks, and
they are really our first line of defense. You talk about
collaboration often in your statement, specifically mentioning
State liaisons and working with States to increase
surveillance. Could you expand on this? What additional roles
do you see the States playing, in collaboration with the
Federal Government, in the integrated national food safety
system?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, thank you very much for that question
and for the opportunity to say how much I enjoyed that visit,
and that I've never eaten so much cheese and ice cream in one
day before. But, it was a wonderful day, and I was told if I'd
stayed for another, I would have had an equal amount of beer
and sausage.
But, you know, the partnership with States and localities
is absolutely key to achieving our success in food safety, and
I feel that very personally, having served for 6 years as New
York City's health commissioner. I know, you know, that it's
the States and localities that are on the ground from the time
that a first case of food-borne illness appears until the last
case goes away, and that the burden, in many ways, is borne at
that level. And the opportunities to extend the reach of
government and these important programs is so enhanced through
collaboration.
We see working with the States as key. We see strengthening
training as an important part of that, we see strengthening
laboratory capacity as an important part of that. We need to
really improve the IT infrastructure for better communication
of information--outbreak results, et cetera.
And I really do think that--going back to some of your
early questions and remarks--especially at this time of
economic constraints--the need for partnership, the need to
make sure that we're really utilizing the sources as best we
can, and that we are sort of mutually supporting the whole
spectrum of activities that are needed to support food safety--
and especially, to put a focus on prevention is absolutely key.
So, this is a priority. We work well with the States on our
food-borne outbreaks, but there's, I think, room to grow, in
terms of strengthening those working relationships. And, of
course, we work with our partner, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Agriculture,
as we address important food-safety issues, as well. So, it's a
very important Federal-State-local partnership.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thanks, Chairman.
If you're going to go to Wisconsin, you got to come to
Kansas. We'll feed you bread and steaks. Really good.
The other thing I would like to invite you there to see is
University of Kansas' Pharmacy School is one of the top rated.
It's rated top one, two, or three in the country. And they've
developed this high-throughput model to test drugs at an early
stage. And they're starting to work more and more in Second and
Third World disease category areas for review, as well. And I
think it'd be interesting to you to be able to see how they're
doing this now, on trying to review these products at a much
faster pace with the process that they're using.
They're also at a point of being able to get a National
Cancer Institute designation, with the Pharmacy School being
one of the key aspects of it. So, it's drug delivery on cancers
that they're working on. And I think it'd be an interesting
thing for you to look at and to see as you think of ways to get
more drugs to market--safe, efficaciously--but try to get this
cost curve down, which is so important for us to be able to get
some more of these categories covered. So, I hope you can--hope
you come out and can take a look at that.
PARTNERSHIPS WITH ACADEME
Dr. Hamburg. Well, I'd love to. And what you're describing,
I think, fits very much with our strong new focus on advancing
regulatory science, and that critically involves partnership
with academe. We want to bring the best and the brightest minds
to addressing these important issues of, how can we make the
regulatory pathway more effective and efficient? How can we use
the best possible science to help us rapidly identify
products----
Senator Brownback. Right.
Dr. Hamburg [continuing]. With promise, and those that will
fail, so that we can really focus our efforts on moving
products through the pipeline to people who need them.
So, I'd be delighted to come out there. A few other people
in the Department of Health and Human Services that care about
Kansas, too. So.
Senator Brownback. Good, good. There's a secretary there
that cares about it, yes.
Thanks, Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Brownback.
Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I would just repeat the
previous discussion we had, so I think I'll--we'll do this at
another time, but----
Dr. Hamburg. All right.
Senator Dorgan [continuing]. Telephone or perhaps in
person.
FOODBORNE ILLNESS
Senator Kohl. Dr. Hamburg, one the outcomes you hope to
achieve with fiscal year 2011 funding is to reduce the time it
takes to detect and respond to outbreaks of food-borne illness.
You talk about collaboration with CDC. State, local, and
international partners have long felt that, after prevention, a
quick response to any outbreak of food-borne illness is the
most important way to prevent its spread.
Several years ago, we actually put funding in this bill for
the FDA to create rapid-response teams throughout the country
in order to do that. I understand that you have increased the
number of these teams--hopefully, because you believe that they
have been successful. Could you talk a little bit more about
these teams and other collaborative efforts you use to respond
to food-borne illness outbreaks in this country?
RAPID RESPONSE
Dr. Hamburg. Well, the rapid-response teams have been an
important success. And thank you for your leadership in making
those happen. We have nine rapid-response teams, at present,
and I think they have demonstrated their value, in terms of, as
you say, being able to rapidly identify a problem and respond.
I think that, even beyond these nine teams, they provide a
useful model as a strategy for how to achieve a more integrated
approach to responding to outbreaks of food-borne illness, and
the need to have a team that reflects a range of different
disciplines and expertise so that you can understand, in a
systematic way, the outbreak and what's needed to respond.
In addition to those rapid-response teams, we have been
able to put in place a network of laboratories to enhance our
emergency response, because you need to identify the food
source, and confirm it, in order to really pursue the
investigation and the appropriate response. And so, that's been
very, very important, as well.
But, there--the elements of an integrated system, I think,
are really starting to be put in place. You know, part of what
I hope to be able to achieve is to continue to extend those
important elements of our system--to institutionalize them,
because, you know, one of the things that I have seen since
I've been in this role is that the FDA has a sort of
unfortunate history of sort of gearing up after there's been
some kind of a crisis, and then the resources recede, and then
there's another crisis, and we gear up again. I'd like to see
us just continue with sustained support for key programs, such
as the rapid-response teams, that do make a difference and
matter to us all.
GENERIC DRUGS
Senator Kohl. Dr. Hamburg, I've been a strong supporter of
the generic drug program for many years now. As you know, we've
consistently provided increased funds for the Office of Generic
Drugs, and yet, because of the number of applications, which
are rising so quickly, we can't keep up, and the backlog is
continuing to rise.
As you know, generic drugs provide an important opportunity
to lower healthcare costs, which Senator Dorgan was referring
to, and to which he is so much dedicated; and getting these
drugs to market as quickly as possible is important, to respond
to the high-priced drugs that we have on the market today.
The budget includes a proposal for user fees for generic
drugs that would result in hiring nearly 80 new reviewers and
inspectors of generic drug applications. Have you been talking
with the industry about these user fees, which they have
opposed in the past? Can you give us an update on this? How
soon can we hope to decrease, if not eliminate, the backlog in
generic drug applications?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, as you point out, generic drugs are
very, very important in being able to get lower-priced, safe
and effective drugs to people who need them. And thanks to the
work of this subcommittee, you know, we have been able to
increase our staffing and our opportunities in the Office of
Generic Drugs and the review process. But, getting those
generic user fees will make an enormous difference.
I, just a few weeks ago, addressed the Generic
Pharmaceutical Association's annual meeting, and had the
opportunity to meet with and speak with their leadership. I am
optimistic that this time we're going to be able to sit down
and work something out, in terms of the generic drug user fees.
I certainly hope so. I think, you know, this is one of those
arenas where industry and FDA both recognize that the present
situation is unacceptable, and not serving the American people
well, and that, you know, together we have to find a meaningful
and real solution. So, we are starting to roll up our sleeves,
and we're going to be working hard on that. And, as I said, I
am optimistic.
Senator Kohl. What's your level of priority on this issue?
PRIORITIES
Dr. Hamburg. On this issue, very high priority. Very high
priority. You know, one of the challenges of this job is that
I'm always juggling a lot of high-priority concerns, but this
is very, very fundamental to what--we're trying to achieve with
the President has set out to achieve through healthcare reform
and other activities, what the Secretary wants to achieve--and
certainly very fundamental to the mission of the FDA.
Senator Kohl. Could you talk a little bit about some of the
foreign offices that you've opened. I understand you have one
in Jordan. What have these foreign offices accomplished, and
how have they increased the level of food safety for American
consumers? And are you intending to pursue that by opening
additional foreign offices?
FOREIGN OFFICES
Dr. Hamburg. We do have a number of foreign offices, at the
present time. Actually, Jordan hasn't opened yet, but it's
slated to open in the upcoming year. This is very important to
extending our foreign presence and our ability to really ensure
the safety of imports, both food and medical products. We,
importantly, have offices in China and India now; we also have
offices in Mexico, Costa Rica, and Chile. We have a presence in
Brussels, to work with our counterparts in the European Union
and in London, our counterpart agency, the EMEA, which is the
European Union's FDA. We're planning an office in Jordan, as
indicated, and also one in Parma, Italy, where EFSA, the
European Union's food safety agency is located.
And, you know, these offices are very, very important,
working to extend our reach, in terms of international
presence, working with sister regulatory agencies in those
countries and in those regions, providing technical assistance
to national regulatory authorities to try to boost regulatory
capacity in other nations, that have less sophisticated systems
than we do, so that we can have greater confidence that
products being developed in those countries are being developed
in accordance with international standards and with the
standards that we would apply.
So, I think, as we think about extending our global reach,
we need, really, to have a very new approach, where our job
isn't simply to inspect things at the border as they come over,
but really to push back and try to assure safety; and again,
you know, a preventive approach, to have standards and systems
that are institutionalized, whatever country is producing the
product, to enhance the safety of these products when they come
into this country. And I think, you know, in many areas, we can
provide an additional benefit by working with other countries
to help them strengthen their regulatory capacity that will
accrue to the people of those nations, as well as to the people
of this country.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
MEDICAL DEVICE REGISTRY
Could you talk a little bit about the medical device
registry that you're working with?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, this is an effort to try to really
achieve a unique identifier system for medical devices, and a
system that will allow us to link information about medical
devices to electronic health records and to a overarching
system where we can better monitor how medical devices are
working in the real world, better track adverse events that may
occur in relation to medical device use in the marketplace,
and, if problems do emerge, to more swiftly and effectively
respond.
Senator Dorgan. All right.
Well, I'd like to thank you so much for being here this
morning.
Dr. Hamburg. Thank you.
Senator Kohl. There are multiple votes that are starting on
the floor, so we'll have to wrap this up.
You've done a great job.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
We're going to keep the record open until next Tuesday, for
any questions, and I hope that you will respond to them by
April 13----
Dr. Hamburg. Okay.
Senator Kohl [continuing]. If you can.
Dr. Hamburg. Certainly.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
pay costs
Question. The amount proposed to keep up with inflation for all of
FDA's salaries and expenses is just under $11,000,000, approximately
$30,000,000 below what was requested last year, although staffing
levels have increased.
Will this amount fully fund all of the salary and benefit increases
you will have to fund this year in order to retain staff?
Answer. The $10,896,000 pay increase for FDA for fiscal year 2011
is not intended to cover the cost of higher benefits and other
increases in payroll costs other than the annual pay adjustment. In
addition, although the $10,896,000 pay increase for FDA supports
increased costs for the annual pay adjustment, it will not cover all of
the FDA costs for the pay adjustment.
Question. If not, how much is necessary, and where will the
additional dollars come from?
Answer. The Summary of Changes table on page 56 of the FDA fiscal
year 2011 budget displays the fiscal year 2011 estimate for higher pay
costs of $66,382,000. This amount is based on the most recent PDUFA pay
analysis. The August 2009 pay analysis for PDUFA determined that the
average change in FDA cost for compensation and benefits per FDA FTE
was 5.54 percent. The table on page 56 also shows the fiscal year 2011
pay change of $10,896,000 and the estimated pay absorption of
$55,486,000. FDA will cover any shortfall during fiscal year 2011 due
to the annual pay adjustment and other pay and benefit costs through a
combination of strategies, including reducing operating costs and
adjusting when it conducts hiring.
user fees
Question. If food safety legislation is passed and includes
authorization of user fees as proposed in the budget, will there be any
discretionary start-up costs? If so, how much?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget includes
$220,200,000 for user fees to register food facilities, conduct
additional inspections of both domestic and foreign facilities, and
conduct expanded import review and product sampling. In addition, the
budget proposes $13,900,000 in food and feed reinspection fees and
$4,400,000 for food and feed export certification services.
If food safety legislation is passed and includes authorization of
user fees as proposed in the budget, FDA could use existing resources
to support the start up costs of setting up the new food safety related
fees. Examples of startup activities include establishing a process to
calculate the new food user fees, expanding FDA billings and
collections capacity, and developing and implementing the new
manufacturer and importer registration requirements In addition, FDA
would enhance its capacity to hire the new employees funded by the food
user fees by expanding FDA efforts to develop, classify, and recruit
the new positions in the foods program and efficiently bring the new
employees on board to FDA.
Question. If legislation is passed to authorize any of the
remaining proposed new user fees (including generic drugs), will
additional budget authority be required to fund start-up costs?
Answer. In this scenario FDA could use existing resources to
support the start up costs of setting up both fees.
Question. If a food safety bill isn't passed this year, and
proposed registration fees can't be collected by FDA, how will this
affect the agency? Do you have a contingency plan to allow FDA to keep
moving forward without those additional dollars?
Answer. For fiscal year 2011, FDA proposes an increase of
$220,200,000 for food registration and inspection user fees. FDA also
proposes an increase of $87,800,000 in budget authority to support
transforming food safety priorities. If Congress does not enact
legislation for fiscal year 2011 that contains food registration and
inspection user fees, FDA will have to rely on the $87,800,000 budget
authority increase to begin to transform food safety. Without the
proposed fees, FDA will have a greatly reduced ability to implement the
priorities announced by the President's Food Safety Working Group.
The affect on FDA will be a significantly reduced ability to
implement President Obama's vision of a new food safety system to
protect the American public. For example, FDA will not be able to hire
479 FTE to conduct important food safety priorities, including 99
consumer safety officers to perform food safety inspections. The result
will be a reduction of the following food inspection activities
compared to the level supported with proposed user fees: 1,900 domestic
food safety inspections, 150 foreign food inspections, 200 domestic
tissue residue inspections for illegal drug residues in meat and
poultry and 3,000 samples for analysis in FDA laboratories.
Not receiving these fees will significantly undermine FDA's ability
to implement the major activities to Transform Food Safety, beginning
in fiscal year 2011. FDA will have a greatly reduced ability to set new
standards for safety, expand laboratory capacity, pilot track and trace
technology, strengthen import safety, improve safety data collection,
conduct food risk analysis and most importantly establish a foundation
for an integrated national food safety system focused on prevention.
food safety
Question. I understand that FDA has entered into cooperative
agreements with more than 30 countries to share inspection reports and
other information, so if they discover a problem, we can be on the
lookout for it here. How long have these agreements been in place and
are you working with additional countries for more?
Answer. FDA currently has 43 confidentiality arrangements with 39
agencies, including the World Health Organization and specific
Directorates General of the European Commission. These confidentiality
arrangements involve 20 countries. The first arrangement was signed
with our counterpart in Switzerland in September, 2003.
Under these arrangements, FDA is not only able to share critical
information with public health counterparts in other countries, but is
also able to receive from our counterpart agencies important
information about emerging safety and other issues and about foreign
regulatory actions. These arrangements allow FDA to share otherwise
non-public information, with the exception of trade secret and personal
privacy information, with counterpart agencies. We believe we have
arrangements now with most countries that are able to enter into and
perform the tasks required in a confidentiality commitment, and which
deal with public health and regulatory issues similar to ours. However,
we continue to monitor our needs and add countries and agencies as the
need arises. Most recently, we have added arrangements with counterpart
agencies in Austria and Italy.
Question. In Dr. Hamburg's statement, she mentioned the importance
of expanding data collection and analysis and removing any barriers to
full collaboration with State, local and foreign food safety efforts.
What specific barriers was she referring to, and what proposals do you
offer?
Answer. Barriers to full collaboration with our State, local and
foreign counterparts are predominantly barriers to data sharing between
entities because of regulatory and technology constraints. To address
these constraints, FDA has developed a new regulatory procedure
designed to leverage more effectively the public health inspection data
gathered by our State partners. Under this initiative, FDA will begin
issuing Warning and Untitled Letters on the basis of State-gathered
evidence. As a result of this enhanced cooperation, both FDA and our
State partners will reap the benefits of translating State regulatory
work directly into FDA regulatory action. FDA is also pleased that
pending food safety legislation which passed the House of
Representatives last year, H.R. 2749, would grants new legal
authorities to allow more information sharing with our State, local and
foreign counterparts.
The technology constraints to data sharing are being addressed in
working groups that are part of the Integrated National Food Safety
System efforts. FDA, the United States Department of Agriculture, and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are participating in
those discussions with the States to seek out opportunities to make
their respective data systems interoperable.
united states pharmacopia partnership
Question. Was FDA's recent partnership with the non-profit
organization United States Pharmacopia to update standards for heparin
and glycerin a successful one? Is this a model that can be replicated?
Answer. Yes, the recent partnership with the United States
Pharmacopia, also known as USP, has been successful. At the request of
FDA, USP has revised the monographs for heparin, glycerin, and
propylene glycol to test for known contaminants. FDA hopes to continue
working with the USP to evaluate the current monograph system and
determine methods to ensure that monographs are modernized as
manufacturing changes or technology improves.
Question. The FDA budget includes proposed funding to develop a
standard for front of package labeling. Is FDA working with USDA in
that effort?
Answer. FDA has been coordinating with the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) on front-of-pack labeling in numerous areas. Our
coordination includes, design, research and science to ensure that the
resulting symbols are noticeable, understandable and useable. The USDA
has supported FDA's research by providing design support for the food
label formats that are being tested by FDA. Additionally, USDA and FDA,
with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), are
supporting the Institute of Medicine, also known as IOM, on issues
related to panel on front-of-pack labeling. Jointly, USDA and FDA
provided input to the IOM panel on the Federal goals for front-of-pack
labeling, information on existing front-of-pack symbols and direction
for the IOM activities. FDA will continue to collaborate closely with
USDA to ensure that the resulting front-of-pack symbols provide
consumers with the information they need to consume healthy diets.
vaccine development
Question. Recently, Secretary Sebelius announced a major evaluation
of our efforts to respond to pandemics and other health threats,
including vaccine development. What will FDA's role be in this, and
what was learned from the H1N1 outbreak?
Answer. A successful public-private partnership that preceded the
2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic facilitated the availability and approval
of safe and effective H1N1 vaccines in record time. This success
reflects years of preparedness efforts and a significant investment by
the Federal Government to counter the pandemic threat.
However, we might not have been so fortunate if the public health
emergency resulted from a pathogen other than influenza. Currently the
Administration is conducting a comprehensive review of the HHS medical
countermeasures development and distribution process, and FDA is
actively working with others in HHS to provide input to this review.
There is increasing awareness that the current approaches to developing
and evaluating vaccines, diagnostics and other treatments needed to
respond to the range of potential public health threats should take
advantage of the latest scientific innovations. Reaping the benefits of
our Nation's investment in biomedical research requires a
complementary, strategic investment in regulatory science. FDA plays a
central role to advance this type of science, which focuses on the
tools to properly assess the safety, efficacy, and quality of medical
products and to get them from concept to people efficiently. In fiscal
year 2011, FDA seeks to enhance its own critically needed scientific
infrastructure and augment its scientific collaborations to advance
regulatory science, and to continue collaborating with our Federal
partners and industry to transform public health preparedness.
prescription drug advertising
Question. I have become increasingly concerned with the lack of
standards regarding direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription
drugs and medical devices via the Internet. Specifically, I am
concerned that the limited amount of drug information provided in
advertisements on social networking forums or ``microblogs'' may pose a
risk to consumers. I am hopeful that increased oversight of this issue
will make Internet-based advertising safer and more reliable, but
remain concerned about any attempt to reduce the safety and labeling
information that consumers receive.
What restrictions does FDA currently place on Internet direct-to-
consumer advertising by drug and medical device manufacturers? What
information must be included in ads or ``microblogs'' about advertised
treatments?
Answer. FDA's regulates all prescription drug promotion that drug
companies issue or caused to be issued. FDA regulations require that
such promotion be accurate, non-misleading, and present balanced
information about both the risks and the benefits of the advertised
product. FDA regulations do not specifically address Internet promotion
of prescription drugs separately from the other types of promotion, but
we have been regulating Internet promotion since drug companies first
began using this medium. For example, we have sent numerous enforcement
letters citing promotion on the Internet that failed to comply with the
regulations, including promotion on company brand Web sites as well as
promotion on search engine sites such as Google, third party sites such
as cnn.com, and on newer social media sites such as YouTube.
FDA regulates promotional labeling of all medical devices but only
the advertising of restricted medical devices. FDA regulations do not
specifically address Internet promotional labeling or advertising for
medical devices, as applicable, separately from other types of
promotion or advertising. FDA has sent numerous enforcement letters
based on promotional labeling, where statements made are not consistent
with the FDA approved or cleared labeling, including statements about
the intended use of the device. FDA has also sent enforcement letters
in situations where it has considered statements made in advertisements
for medical devices to be evidence of an intended use for which the
device has not been approved or cleared.
Question. Are you concerned that incomplete drug advertising
information on social networking sites like Facebook or Twitter may
pose a risk to consumers, especially if the FDA logo is included in the
ad?
Answer. Yes, we are concerned about drug advertising on social
network sites and are committed to ensuring that prescription drug
promotion accurately conveys product risks and benefits, regardless of
the medium used for such promotion. We are also concerned about FDA's
logo being used in any drug promotion. FDA held a Part 15 Public
Hearing in November 2009 to obtain public input on ``Promotion of FDA-
Regulated Medical Products Using the Internet and Social Media Tools.''
Social media tools, as well as their expansion to applications such as
mobile technology, have raised questions regarding how to apply
existing regulations to promotion in these newer media. We are
currently evaluating the information and data obtained during our Part
15 Hearing and in the related docket and plan to ensure that FDA has
optimal policies in place for oversight of drug promotion using social
networking tools.
Question. Does the Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and
Communications have adequate resources to properly oversee this type of
marketing? If not, what additional resources are necessary?
Answer. The Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and
Communications, also known as DDMAC, has approximately 53 full-time
employees. Currently, there are 24 staff in DDMAC focused on the review
of direct-to-consumer advertising, including 13 reviewers. To get a
sense of their workload, we note that DDMAC received 76,631 promotional
pieces at the time of their first use during calendar year 2009. Of
these, 15,998 were consumer-directed promotional pieces, which includes
both direct-to-consumer ads and DTC promotional labeling pieces.
Another 14,970 were ``mixed'' pieces. These are pieces directed to both
consumer and professional audiences, which are typically Internet-based
materials intended for all audiences. DDMAC can only review a fraction
of these promotions. To most effectively address the increasing number
of prescription drug promotional pieces that are produced each year,
including the extremely rapid growth of Internet promotion, FDA has
adopted a comprehensive risk-based strategy for triaging its
substantial workload. This risk-based approach is designed to have the
most impact in addressing misleading promotion and fulfill its goal of
protecting consumers and healthcare professionals from misleading
promotion of medical products.
antibiotics
Question. The Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee last year
encouraged FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine to conduct a focused
reassessment of Guidance Document No. 152 to review and update the
current ranking of antibiotics according to their importance in human
medicine as a framework for approving antibiotics for use in animals.
What is the status of this reassessment?
Answer. FDA intends to update its guidance on the ``Potential
ranking of antimicrobial drugs/drug classes based on identified
relevant factors'' included in Guidance For Industry Number 152,
``Evaluating the Safety of Antimicrobial New Animal Drugs With Regard
to Their Microbiological Effects on Bacteria of Human Health Concern.''
At this time, FDA is planning to seek expert advice and public input on
any updates to this existing drug ranking.
Question. What is FDA's timeframe for issuing regulations to
implement the animal antibiotic use data collection provision that was
included in the Animal Drug User Fee Act (ADUFA)?
Answer. Section 105 of the Animal Drug User Fee Amendments of 2008,
also known as ADUFA, established additional requirements regarding the
submission of sales and distribution data for antimicrobial active
ingredients in new animal drugs approved for use in food-producing
animals. The sponsors of such products are required by statute to
submit the first report including this additional information by March
31, 2010. The issuance of regulations is not required to implement the
new ADUFA Section 105 requirements. However, independent of
implementing these new statutory requirements, FDA intends to pursue
rulemaking in the near future to incorporate the new Section 105
requirements into the existing regulations regarding the preparation
and submission of records and reports for new animal drugs.
Question. The FDA has been authorized for several years to review
the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in farms. In 2004 letters were
sent from the FDA to manufacturers of drugs requesting more information
related to resistance, but there is uncertainty regarding whether FDA
received a response. To date, it appears FDA is still attempting to
gather data on this issue.
At what point will this data gathering be completed? Will there be
a point prior to that when FDA will have enough data to make an
assessment?
Answer. FDA continues to be concerned about the use of medically
important antimicrobial drugs, antimicrobial drugs that are important
for therapeutic use in humans, in food-producing animals for non-
therapeutic, production purposes. FDA does not believe that it is
judicious to use these important drugs for such purposes in animals.
Therefore, FDA is developing a strategy to address this important
public health issue. Moving forward with the strategy to address this
important public health issue is a priority for FDA. FDA is completing
an initial review of the issue and intends to publish a document
describing its current thinking in the near future.
regulation of tobacco
Question. Recently the FDA began implementation of the Family
Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. How is FDA working with
interested parties, including the tobacco industry, consumer groups,
and other agencies that have jurisdiction over tobacco products, in
developing and implementing the regulatory process to ensure
compliance?
Answer. FDA, through its Center for Tobacco Products, or CTP, is
working in a number of ways with interested parties to implement the
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, or more simply, the
Tobacco Control Act. In July 2009, FDA opened a public docket seeking
input from the public and various stakeholders on the implementation of
the new statute and subsequently extended the comment period from
September 29, 2009 to December 28, 2009. Since then, public dockets
have been opened for comment on a number of issues, including marketing
descriptors to convey modified risk and product registration and
labeling requirements.
FDA has developed a CTP Web site, located at www.fda.gov/
TobaccoProducts. This Web site contains information about CTP's efforts
to implement the Tobacco Control Act, a list of frequently asked
questions and answers about the Tobacco Control Act, tobacco-related
regulatory documents such as guidance documents and regulations,
contact information, and other information about tobacco use and
prevention.
In early August 2009, the Assistant Secretary for Health, the FDA
Commissioner, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention hosted a conference call with more than 200 State and local
officials to discuss collaboration in carrying out the Tobacco Control
Act.
In September 2009, FDA held a series of listening sessions with a
variety of stakeholders, including national tobacco control groups,
State and local government organizations, Federal partners, and tobacco
manufacturers, distributors, importers, and retailers to hear comments
and concerns regarding implementation of the Tobacco Control Act.
In October and November 2009, FDA held two listening sessions to
provide industry additional opportunities to make comments and raise
concerns about the registration, product listing, and ingredient
submission requirements.
Question. As of June 22, tobacco packaging will no longer be
allowed to include phrases such as ``Light'' and ``Ultra-Light''. When
will final guidance on this be issued to ensure maximum compliance?
Answer. Section 911 of the Tobacco Control Act prohibits the use of
the descriptors ``light,'' ``mild,'' or ``low'' in the label, labeling,
or advertising of tobacco products without an FDA order in effect. This
statutory provision takes effect on June 22, 2010. In advance of the
effective date of this prohibition, FDA intends to conduct outreach to
retailers and manufacturers, reminding them of their responsibilities
under the statute. FDA also plans to initiate a public education effort
to increase public understanding about the prohibition of these terms.
Once this provision takes effect, FDA intends to enforce it through a
variety of means.
Section 911 also prohibits the use of ``similar descriptors,'' such
as descriptors similar to ``light,'' ``mild,'' or ``low,'' without an
FDA order in effect. FDA opened a public docket in January 2010 to
solicit public input on how to define ``similar descriptors,''
specifically requesting input on the use of numbers, colors, healthy
images and terms like ``smooth,'' ``silver,'' and ``natural.'' FDA is
in the process of assessing the input received from the public,
including comments from tobacco control advocacy organizations and
tobacco companies and trade organizations.
standards of identity for milk
Question. Please provide an update on FDA's response to a petition
filed last year regarding amending the standards of identity for milk
as they relate to artificial sweeteners.
Answer. FDA received a citizen petition from the International
Dairy Foods Association, also known as IDFA, and the National Milk
Producers Federation dated March 16, 2009. The petitioners requested
FDA to amend the standard of identity for milk in 21 CFR 131.110(c), to
provide for the use of any safe and suitable sweetener in the optional
characterizing flavoring ingredients and to similarly amend 17 other
standards of identity for milk and cream products, including yogurts.
Such a change to the milk standard would permit the use of non-
nutritive sweeteners in flavored standardized milk. Currently, the
standard of identity for milk provides for the use of only nutritive
sweeteners under optional ingredients in 21 CFR 131.110(c)(2) in the
characterizing flavor for flavored milks. FDA issued an interim
response to IDFA on August 24, 2009 explaining that FDA had not reached
a final decision on the petition due to other priorities. FDA is
currently considering how it will respond to the petition.
state contract inspections
Question. During fiscal year 2009, what percentage of food and
medical product inspections were carried out by State inspectors
through a contract?
Answer. In fiscal year 2009, State inspectors carried out 23,913
unique food and medical product establishment inspections. These State
contract inspections total 62 percent of domestic inspections carried
out by FDA and the States.
state audits
Question. Funding was provided in fiscal year 2010 to enhance FDA's
audit program for State inspection programs. Please provide an update
on how this funding was used, and whether State program audits have
increased.
Answer. Of the 26 States currently enrolled in the Manufactured
Food Regulatory Program Standards, also known as MFRPS, FDA completed
program audits of five States during fiscal year 2009. These States are
Missouri, North Carolina, New York, Oregon and Wisconsin. FDA expects
to complete program audits in Massachusetts, Florida, Minnesota,
Michigan, California and Washington during fiscal year 2010. These
audits include a review of the States' self-assessment of their own
programs against the standards described in FDA's MFRPS. The audits
focus on a review of all manufacturing inspections accomplished by the
States--both FDA contract and routine State inspections. The audits
include reviews of the States' regulatory foundation, education and
training files maintained for field investigators, inspection reports,
self-audit procedures, compliance and enforcement actions, response and
preparedness within the State, sample collection procedures, community
outreach and the program's relationship with a regulatory lab.
In addition to creating the infrastructure to perform robust
program audits and improve our performance in auditing State
inspections performed under FDA contract, FDA is also creating the
critical infrastructure to provide support, guidance and technical
assistance to our State regulatory partners to better enable them to
establish and sustain conformance to the MFRPS. The funding provided by
Congress is being fully and effectively used to support our States'
successful implementation of the MFRPS, a key component of an
effective, integrated national food safety system.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
drug reimportation
Question. Please provide us with your timeline for setting up the
process for drug reimportation.
Answer. The Administration supports a program to allow Americans to
buy safe and effective drugs from other countries. The Administration
has included $5,000,000 in our fiscal year 2010 and 2011 budget
requests for the Food and Drug Administration to begin working with
various stakeholders to develop policy options related to drug
importation and addressing some of the implementation challenges such
as improving supply chain security.
FDA is currently conducting assessments of different drug
importation approaches to inform legislative proposals and identify
initial infrastructure needed to implement a program that assures
patient safety. This work includes, among other things, conducting an
economic and implementation analysis, evaluating policy options,
identifying and enhancing IT infrastructure associated with drug
importation, identifying and developing training programs, increasing
sampling and laboratory capacity, enhancing collaboration with
regulatory counterparts, and developing track and trace standards for
supply chain security. Although we have not established a specific
timeline for setting up the process for drug importation program we
remain committed to ensuring that Americans have access to safe and
effective drugs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
Question. Some individuals and interest groups have raised concerns
that S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, expands the
jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration into areas
traditionally overseen by the United States Department of Agriculture.
Please provide the FDA perspective on how, if at all, legislation would
expand FDA jurisdiction into areas traditionally overseen by the USDA?
Answer. FDA believes that these concerns are unfounded. The
legislation makes it clear that the new provisions do not affect USDA's
jurisdiction and, in many places, explicitly requires FDA consultation
with USDA. With regard to new requirements, such as the produce safety
standards, FDA is already working closely with USDA as we develop those
standards. USDA also will be involved in the implementation of such
standards, including an extensive outreach program to help the affected
industry comply with the new standards. FDA recognizes the importance
of working with USDA, with its expertise in agricultural production and
its significant workforce, to help inform and implement the standards.
FDA and USDA also are working together to ensure that our produce
safety and quality activities are complementary and consistent and take
into account the diversity of farming operations.
Question. The adverse event reporting (AER) system for dietary
supplements created by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug
Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 109-462) has been in effect for
over 2 years. The intent of the AER system was to assist FDA in
enhancing its surveillance capability by authorizing it to collect data
regarding illnesses related to the consumption of dietary supplements.
How has data collected through the AER system been used by FDA to
identify meaningful trends and aid in recalls?
Answer. The implementation of Public Law 109-462 resulted in a
substantial increase in the number of adverse event reports about
dietary supplements submitted to FDA. Additionally, the law mandated
that product labels accompany mandatory serious adverse event reports.
These factors have assisted FDA in two ways. First, the higher number
of reports received enables FDA's clinical reviewers and statisticians
to better detect unusual reporting patterns from clusters of adverse
event reports, possibly providing evidence to better determine
associations between products and adverse health effects. Second,
product labels allow for better characterization of the products and
their ingredients than may result from voluntary reports--typically
from consumers--where the product may not be as clearly characterized
and a label may not be included. Better description and
characterization of the product helps FDA target specific products in
support of FDA enforcement efforts. Analysis of adverse event reports,
for example, led to FDA's warning to consumers and healthcare
professionals about certain Hydroxycut-branded products because of
serious reports of liver disease. The company producing the affected
Hydroxycut-branded products--Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A., Inc.--
voluntarily recalled those products in 2009.
Question. In January 2009, GAO issued a report on FDA's oversight
of dietary supplements. In that report, GAO recommended that FDA issue
guidance to clarify when an ingredient is considered a new dietary
ingredient, what evidence is needed to document the safety of new
dietary ingredients, and appropriate methods for establishing
ingredient identity. In its comments on this recommendation, FDA said
that it had developed draft guidance which was undergoing internal
review. Can you provide me on an update on the status of this guidance?
Answer. FDA is developing a draft New Dietary Ingredient, also
known as NDI, guidance that is under internal FDA review. We expect the
draft guidance to discuss, among other issues, when FDA considers an
ingredient to be an NDI, FDA's current thinking on the evidence needed
to document the safety of NDIs, and recommendations on appropriate
methods for establishing the identity and composition of NDIs.
In addition, FDA is developing a proposed rule to better define
what a manufacturer or distributor must include in a NDI notification.
Establishing more precisely the information that must be included in an
NDI notification would improve the quality of the notifications being
submitted to FDA and would expedite the review of NDI notifications.
The amendments FDA intends to propose would also enable staff to
evaluate the safety of new dietary ingredients in a more efficient
manner with its limited resources. Both the draft guidance and the
proposed rule are currently under review within FDA and appear to raise
a number of complex issues.
Question. There have been numerous notification delays that
resulted in schools unknowingly serving beef, peanut products and
canned vegetables that have been recalled. For the last 5 years, the
Food and Drug Administration and the United States Department of
Agriculture have been drafting a Memorandum of Understanding related to
the safety of food served in schools. The Memorandum of Understanding
would set forth detailed notification procedures during the FDA's
investigation of commodities intended for school meal programs. Have
the two agencies finalized this memorandum of understanding? If not,
what is causing the delay and what is the anticipated timeline for
doing so?
Answer. FDA and the Food and Nutrition Service, also known as FNS,
has collaborated with FDA to develop a Memorandum of Agreement, or MOA.
Specifically, the MOA is between the Department of Health and Human
Services, FDA and the following agencies within the United States
Department of Agriculture: the Agricultural Marketing Service, FNS, and
the Farm Service Agency. It is intended to strengthen and facilitate
the exchange of information among the participating agencies during
investigations and recalls that may involve USDA commodities such as
those offered through the National School Lunch Program, and the Woman,
Infants, and Children (WIC) Program.
The basic framework of the Memorandum of Understanding is complete
and it is under review by the agencies. Final clearance will follow
with a targeted completion date of summer 2010.
Question. In June 2010, several provisions of the Family Smoking
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Public Law 111-31) will take
effect, including new restrictions on cigarette advertising; new
stronger warning labels for smokeless tobacco products; and a
prohibition of terms such as ``light,'' ``low,'' and ``mild'' on
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. How is FDA planning to
educate the public about these changes, and ensure that industry
complies with both the letter and spirit of the law?
Answer. Concurrent with the reissuance of the 1996 Final Rule,
``Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and
Smokeless Tobacco to Protect Children and Adolescents,'' published in
the Federal Register on March 19, 2010, FDA began educating the public.
FDA has made available a variety of materials directed to retailers and
consumers about the regulations. This effort includes information about
what the regulations require, how to comply with them, and how to
report violations. A dedicated Web page, www.fda.gov/
protectingkidsfromtobacco, was created and will be updated with the
latest information. As of now, it includes fact sheets to both
retailers and consumers, a letter to retailers, and frequently asked
questions. FDA has also used social media, such as YouTube, badges, and
buttons to reach out to consumers. Additionally, FDA has established a
call center to respond to questions from the public.
The Tobacco Control Act also directs the Secretary to contract with
the States and Territories, to the extent feasible, to carry out
tobacco retailer inspections and investigations to enforce the
provisions of the reissued 1996 Rule. The goal is to enter into
contracts with 75 percent of States and territories in fiscal year
2011.
In advance of the effective date of the provision prohibiting the
use of terms such as ``light,'' ``low,'' or ``mild,'' FDA intends to
conduct outreach to retailers and manufacturers, reminding them of
their responsibilities under the statute. FDA also plans to initiate a
public education effort to increase public understanding about the
prohibition of these terms.
FDA is currently assessing what additional public education and
outreach efforts would be appropriate in order to adequately inform the
public when these provisions become effective on June 22, 2010.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter
Question. Last year, the FDA responded to the H1N1 threat with
appropriate speed and while the process was not without challenges it
was, in general, fast and efficient. I am concerned that this same
urgency is not being applied to medical countermeasures being developed
to prevent or mitigate threats that have been identified as critical
national security priorities but have not yet materialized. The release
of biological, chemical and radiological agents or the detonation of a
nuclear device will come with little or no warning, we as a nation must
have already developed and stockpiled safe and effective
countermeasures if we are to respond to these types of threats. Does
the FDA have the resources that it needs to prioritize responses to
regulatory inquires and submissions from companies that are under
contract with the Federal Government to develop products the United
States has identified as critical unmet needs?
Answer. Currently the Administration is conducting a comprehensive
review of the HHS medical countermeasures development and distribution
process, which has been a coordinated interagency effort by HHS'
Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response and includes the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of
Health, and FDA. As part of this review, there have been discussions
about the U.S. Government's ability to ensure that medical
countermeasure development is appropriately prioritized and resourced,
and whether FDA has the resources and staff to robustly engage with
partners throughout a product's developmental life-cycle. The
Administration will be briefing Congress of its findings and
recommendations once this comprehensive review is complete. Using
existing resources and within the applicable regulatory framework, FDA
prioritizes regulatory inquiries and submissions from sponsors and U.S.
Government partners that are engaged in developing products that have
been identified as meeting a critical unmet need.
Question. How extensively has the leadership of the FDA and the
staff responsible for reviewing medical countermeasures been briefed on
the national security threat assessments for CBRN agents? How many FDA
employees that are involved in the review of medical countermeasures
being developed under contract with BARDA, NIH or DOD have the
appropriate security clearances necessary to allow them to receive
classified threat briefings?
Answer. FDA leadership has been briefed and is very aware of the
national security threat assessments for CBRN agents. FDA leadership is
briefed by the HHS Office of Security and Strategic Information, and
FDA has an employee assigned to that Office. In addition, FDA's Office
of Criminal Investigations, within the Office of Regulatory Affairs,
works with the Intelligence Community to obtain information and briefs
FDA's leadership as needed. Across FDA's three centers that review
medical countermeasure products, 106 employees that have been or in the
future may be involved in medical countermeasure-related reviews have
received special clearances to review classified documents related to
product review submissions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
access act
Question. Dr. Hamburg, during our meeting last week we discussed a
bill I've been working on since 2005 to create a new conditional
approval system for drugs, biological products, and devices that is
responsive to the needs of seriously ill patients. This effort, called
the Access, Compassion, Care and Ethics for Seriously-ill Patients Act,
or ACCESS Act, offers a new compassionate investigational approval
system for treatments showing efficacy during clinical trials, for use
by the seriously ill patient population. Under this new approval
system, seriously ill patients who have exhausted all alternatives and
are seeking new treatment options would be offered access to these
treatments with the consent of their physician. I plan to reintroduce
the bill during this session.
After our meeting, my staff provided a copy of this bill to FDA.
Have you had a chance to review this legislation? Do you have any
thoughts on the bill?
Answer. I appreciate your interest in providing treatments to
seriously ill patients and am committed to working with you on this
important issue. We recognize the importance of providing access to
patients who may benefit from an investigational drug and of providing
seriously ill patients with a measure of autonomy over their healthcare
options. My staff is continually engaged in efforts to increase the
awareness of clinicians and patients about FDA's expanded access
mechanisms. We are currently in the process of reviewing the
legislation your staff provided and will give you feedback on the bill
as soon as our review is complete.
Question. Would you be willing to work with me to find common
ground on this issue?
Answer. I welcome the opportunity to work with you to find common
ground on this issue. Once we have reviewed your bill, my staff will
contact your staff to determine how we might continue to work together
on this important issue.
cost of developing drugs
Question. In March 2004, FDA released a report, called ``Innovation
or Stagnation: Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New
Medical Products'', that addressed the challenges facing the drug
industry in bringing a new medical product to market. In this report,
FDA raised concerns about the high cost of product development,
estimated in the report to be $800,000,000 to $1,700,000,000 per
product, and the high failure rate of products before they reach FDA
for review. This was particularly concerning to the agency given the
government and private sector's increased investment in research and
development over the same period of time.
It has been 6 years since FDA released this report and launched a
new initiative to address this problem. What progress has the agency
made in its quest to reduce the cost of drug development and provide
more certainty that products will be viable beyond the research phase?
Answer. Development of a drug takes many years, so it is too early
to provide any specific metrics on cost and viability. However, I can
certainly report progress in many Critical Path areas, some of which
will have serious cost impacts. We have a series of fairly advanced
efforts under way that will ultimately make the collection, submission,
and management of the data FDA receives totally electronic. This effort
will bring significant cost savings for industry and FDA because it
will make the collection and analysis of this data much more efficient.
An especially notable Critical Path success is the enormous support
it has among industry, academia, and the public. There has been
considerable enthusiasm to partner with us on Critical Path projects.
In 2008 alone, Critical Path collaborations involved 84 government
agencies, universities, industry leaders, and patient groups from 28
States and 5 countries on a raft of groundbreaking research projects.
Critical Path has also stimulated the creation of numerous
collaborations that are leveraging outside resources, with FDA serving
in an advisory capacity. These collaborations are reporting substantial
successes as well.
We are also making great strides in personalizing therapy.
Increasingly, pharmaceutical developers are using pharmacogenetics and
genomics data in drug development and submitting more of this type of
data to FDA as part of their marketing applications. Since 2008, we
have seen a 250 percent increase in the submission of genomic data
included in marketing applications. To modernize our review process,
FDA created a Genomics Group that uses an integrated review process,
including discussions of genomics, pharmacometrics, and clinical
pharmacology in the scoping meetings for all application submissions,
including pediatric supplements. We are learning more and more about
how to personalize treatments, making them safer and more effective.
generic drug review
Question. Since the fiscal year 2008 appropriation, funding for the
Office of Generic Drugs has increased by 23 percent. However, during
this same time period, the median approval time for generic drugs has
gone from 18.89 months to more than 26 months. How do you explain this
decline in performance?
Answer. The number of new generic drug applications submitted to
FDA remains at a high rate of over 800 per year. Increased resources
recently provided by Congress enabled FDA to hire more scientific
review staff members. As the complexity of applications increases,
however, more time is required for review and approval of each
application. There are a significant number of pending applications.
However, in most instances, applications are approved when relevant
patents or exclusivities expire. Even if the currently pending
applications were otherwise approvable, over one-half of them could not
be approved immediately because they are currently blocked by patents
or exclusivities. Further, some applications are of lower quality and
these take longer to review. In addition, the total time to approval
includes time that the application is with the firm after the
application has been reviewed and deficiencies have been communicated
for the firm to address. Sometimes the firm does not respond to the
deficiencies in a timely manner because of the firm's own priorities or
perhaps lack of resources to address the deficiencies.
third party inspection
Question. Many States have implemented ``inspect the inspector''
programs to help find efficiencies in their inspection budgets. FDA
calls this third party inspection, and I understand that the agency has
been looking into this kind of inspection program to augment FDA's
foreign food inspections. Would you update me on FDA's efforts in this
area?
Answer. In fiscal year 2009, FDA initiated a pilot program for
aquacultured shrimp, under which it has audited more than 56 shrimp
processors in six countries in an effort to evaluate the utility of
third party programs to prevent problems with shrimp before export to
the United States. Under the pilot, third parties will be certifying
compliance of aquaculture shrimp with FDA's Seafood Hazard Analysis
Critical Control Point (HACCP) regulations. If FDA finds that it can
have confidence in such certifications, it may alter the import
monitoring for those processors, freeing up resources to focus on
higher risk processors.
FDA has been working with foreign regulators and third party
certification bodies to enhance monitoring and oversight of processing
sites. FDA expects that these activities will enhance FDA's regulatory
oversight by leveraging resources and a shared mission with foreign
regulators. These activities also have an educational outreach
component that promotes foreign industry standards that are in line
with FDA's expectations for imported food. In addition, the evaluation
of the aquacultured shrimp pilot will provide valuable insight into the
feasibility of using third party certification programs for foreign
inspections.
Question. Have you considered a third party inspection program for
domestic food inspections?
Answer. FDA is currently in the evaluation stage of our Voluntary
third party certification pilot for imported aquacultured shrimp pilot.
The goal of the shrimp pilot is to assist FDA to determine the
infrastructure needs for managing third party systems and the process
for evaluating third party certification programs, including evaluating
the utility and feasibility of third party voluntary programs.
The pilot evaluated six participants--U.S. Government agency,
foreign government, and private certification bodies--using the
Guidance for Voluntary Third Party Certification Programs, published in
the Federal Register in January 2009. The guidance was drafted in
alignment with other existing benchmark attributes such as the
Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Standards to ensure the same
attributes are used for all third parties--States, foreign governments,
and private certification bodies. The evaluation of the aquacultured
shrimp pilot will provide valuable insight into the feasibility of
using third party certification programs for both foreign and domestic
inspections.
In the domestic arena, we are working with our State partners to
build an integrated food safety system. This includes developing
standards and training and auditing to those standards. With this
approach, Federal and State inspections, sample collections and
analyses will support an integrated food safety system that will result
in more coordinated coverage of the domestic food industry.
medical product safety
Question. In December 2009, FDA notified healthcare facilities to
discontinue the use of or transition away from using the STERIS System
1 sterilization device. The agency described this product as
``misbranded and adulterated'' in this notice, but proceeded to allow
the product to be in use in healthcare facilities for over a year and a
half. Is it common procedure for the agency to notify healthcare
facilities of safety concerns and then allow the product to be in use
for a long period of time?
Answer. The decision to allow the continued use of a product of
concern is determined by several factors, including the availability
and cost of alternate products and the time required for providers to
safely put these alternative products in place. Other factors include
the impact that a delay of treatment caused by transitioning to
alternative products man have on patients.
For some devices, the immediate removal of the device may result in
a device shortage or cause a delay in necessary medical procedures. In
these situations, FDA works with distributors and healthcare providers
to avoid shortages that might result in postponement of care.
FDA performed a shortage assessment for the STERIS System 1
Processor, also known as SS1, and determined that a sudden removal of
the SS1 could disrupt operations at healthcare facilities, and that the
risks of such a disruption would outweigh the risk of a measured
transition to legally marketed alternative products.
FDA provided general information to healthcare facilities on steps
to mitigate the risk associated with continued use of the SS1,
including a document identifying FDA-cleared products available to
sterilize or disinfect medical devices.
Question. Are healthcare providers required to notify patients that
they are using a product that FDA has asked them to discontinue?
Answer. Unless healthcare providers are serving as medical device
manufacturers or distributors, which would fall outside the practice of
medicine, FDA typically does not ask them to notify patients that they
are using product that FDA has asked them to discontinue. FDA
communicates regularly with patients and healthcare providers about
products of concern. For example, FDA has made a broad range of
information available on its Web site that details FDA concerns with
the STERIS System 1 Processor. FDA also looks to device manufacturers
and distributors to provide notifications about their products to
healthcare providers and patients.
critical path
Question. I have followed with a great deal of interest the
agency's critical path public private partnerships that were authorized
in the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act. I have been
particularly impressed with how the Critical Path Institute has been
able to leverage its relatively modest partnership funding from FDA by
bringing additional funding from Arizona-based foundations and in-kind
effort from the pharmaceutical industry to improve the methods used to
test new drugs. I recently learned that the Critical Path Institute has
been able to engage the Gates Foundation to work with the FDA on
developing Tuberculosis drug combinations. As you know, the fiscal year
2010 appropriations bill included $2,000,000 to address this serious
global health threat. What do you think can be accomplished with the
Tuberculosis funding and how does it fit into your priorities for
regulatory science?
Answer. The tuberculosis funding is a critical first step in
generating a program to accelerate the development of products for the
diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of tuberculosis. The effort we
envision is completely in line with FDA's new regulatory science
initiative, planned for fiscal year 2011, which is designed to get
better products to patients faster and more safely.
Under this initiative, FDA seeks to rebuild its own critically
needed scientific infrastructure and capacity to meet the demands of
the 21st Century and to enhance its scientific collaborations. We will
use the TB funding to establish partnerships that can leverage the
relevant expertise and resources to develop TB diagnostics and
biomarkers, the lack of which is a critical obstacle to TB drug
development. We will also focus on developing the scientific principles
for selection of new drug combinations as well as approaches for
identifying new compounds and existing drugs that have activity against
TB. With regard to clinical trials, it will be important to identify
and validate endpoints that can be used in the conduct of vaccine
trials, as well as build a stronger clinical trial infrastructure for
conducting high-quality studies where the disease is endemic.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
Question. As you are aware, the user fee agreement negotiated
between the FDA and the medical device industry and passed into law by
Congress includes a series of goals that the FDA commits to meeting in
return for the funds provided to the FDA by the industry. The FDA holds
quarterly meetings with the device industry to report on the user fee
program, funds being collected, and how goals are being met. However,
it has come to my attention that for the first time in the history of
the medical device user fee program, the FDA has failed to meet its two
goals for PMA applications: 60 percent of applications have a decision
in 180 days and 90 percent have a decision in 295 days. Neither goal is
being met for 2008 applications and also will likely not be met for
2009 applications. Can you explain why FDA is not meeting these goals?
Answer. The goal to which you refer applies to non-expedited
original premarket approvals or PMA and panel-track supplements. Our
data currently indicates that FDA can still meet the 180-day decision
goal, both for 2008 and 2009 applications. Our staff is striving to do
so. You are correct that the 295-day decision goal was not met for 2008
applications and is unlikely to be met for 2009 applications, despite
strong efforts by our staff.
It is important to recognize that the goals for 2008 and beyond are
more challenging than for previous years. For example, the required
performance level for the 180-day decision goal increased from 50
percent for 2007 applications to 60 percent for 2008 applications.
FDA's performance on this goal for 2008 applications has already
surpassed performance for 2007 applications, but the 2008 goal has not
yet been met. Had the goal remained unchanged, FDA's performance would
have already satisfied it.
Another contributing factor may be growth in the premarket review
workload. The number of expedited and non-expedited PMA applications
and panel-track supplements filed in 2009 was 15 percent greater than
in 2007. Similarly, the number of 510K submissions was 12 percent
greater. The same technical staff who review PMA applications also
review 510K submissions, so it is important to consider the total
review workload. In addition, the complexity of medical device
technology is continually increasing.
FDA recognizes the importance to public health of promoting the
rapid introduction of safe and effective medical devices. The user fee
performance goals remain a high strategic priority, and the Center for
Devices and Radiological Health, or CDRH, is taking steps to improve
performance. The staff at CDRH are developing improvements to their
review processes to increase efficiency, consistency, and transparency,
such as the new ``iReview'' system--an electronic interactive review
system for 510Ks. They have implemented intensified internal tracking
and reporting procedures for submissions subject to user fee goals.
They are also gathering information on missed goals to better
understand the underlying causes and develop effective solutions.
Question. In your budget justification document you discuss a
Medical Device Registry. As I'm sure you know, a provision to amend the
FDCA to establish a medical device registry appeared in the House
healthcare reform bill. This provision relied on manufacturer's
proprietary sales data and certainly had the potential to be used for
purposes unrelated to the FDA's mission. The concept was never
discussed at any hearings in the committee of jurisdiction.
Manufacturers raised a number of concerns about the intent behind the
provision and answers to questions about its purpose were not
forthcoming from the Administration. Now your proposal seems
straightforward and I just have a few questions:
What assurances can you offer that your proposal will not rely on
manufacturers' sales information or other confidential data?
Answer. We do not anticipate that the effort to establish the
National Medical Device Registry, also known as NMDR, will require
manufacturer proprietary sales information or other confidential data.
Rather, the aim is to develop and implement a national strategy for the
best public health use of health-related electronic data that
incorporates unique device identifiers (UDIs) and leverages existing
procedure and device registries. To the extent any confidential
commercial information is submitted to FDA, we can assure you that we
will protect it in accordance with applicable disclosure statutes and
regulations.
Question. What assurances can you offer that the purpose of this
registry is to gather meaningful denominator data in an effort to
improve the usefulness of the FDA's post market safety efforts?
Answer. The incorporation of UDIs into health-related electronic
data will provide FDA with long-needed exposure--or denominator--
information that is critical to the assessment of device safety. The
purpose of the NMDR is to use the variety of disparate healthcare data
sources, which will incorporate UDIs, to significantly augment FDA's
postmarket safety efforts.
Question. How will you ensure that the registry and the information
in it will not be used by CMS or other third party payers to make
coverage and payment determinations?
Answer. The purpose of the registry is to develop and implement a
national strategy for the best public health use of health-related
electronic data that incorporates unique device identifiers (UDIs) and
leverages existing procedure and device registries. FDA can not control
how others use this data.
Question. As you know we have tried to support the Critical Path
Initiative in your appropriations but we have not been able to come
close to the amount the European Union has given to their Innovative
Medicines Initiative, which I am told was created to directly compete
with the FDA's critical path program. As the critical path initiative
is very closely related and complimentary to your regulatory science
program, how will you continue to support critical path?
Answer. The European Commission has committed large amounts of
funding to the E.U. program, which is modeled on FDA's Critical Path
Initiative, but the funding you have given FDA to support Critical Path
Initiative, also known as CPI, has been put to excellent use. In 2006,
2007, and 2008, FDA reported on 40 to 60 specific CPI projects
involving FDA and numerous collaborators. During fiscal year 2008, the
year that Congress allocated $8,000,000 to fund CPI projects, CPI
collaborations involved 84 government agencies, universities, industry
leaders, and patient groups from 28 States and 5 countries on a raft of
groundbreaking research projects.
In 2009, we received $16,000,000 in appropriations to support CPI.
That year, we conducted an informal survey of CPI projects under way,
including the congressionally funded projects, and found that numerous
CPI projects are being worked on all across FDA to support regulatory
science. CPI has been the prime engine driving much of the scientific
work at FDA since 2006.
Advancing Regulatory Science is a broad, FDA initiative, with many
cross-agency components, that is building on the Critical Path
Initiative. Advancing Regulatory Science seeks to develop FDA's
scientific infrastructure, enhance scientific collaborations with
academia and other government agencies, and increase our Critical Path
partnerships. With a focused agenda and a greater, more targeted
investment of human and financial resources, we can expand our work
with partners to transform the culture and science of product research,
development, and evaluation. We plan to use these resources to continue
efforts that speed therapies to patients, address unmet public health
needs, protect our food supply, work toward modernizing toxicology and
hazard assessment. With support from the Center for Tobacco Products,
we hope to meet the many challenges to regulating tobacco.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Kohl. Once again, we thank you and your colleagues
for being here today.
And this hearing is now recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., Tuesday, March 9, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
----------
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 2011
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 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 all proposals to
divert funding away from these important programs.
food aid's unique role
The donation of American commodities as food aid has been the
cornerstone of U.S. and global foreign assistance programs since their
inception. However, food aid has evolved in important ways over the
years. Food aid began as an outgrowth of American farm policy that
generated sizeable surpluses and American foreign policy characterized
by the cold war competition for the hearts and minds of impoverished
populations across the globe. Since then, American farm policy has
evolved away from surpluses, and therefore food can no longer be
mischaracterized as ``dumping'' of excess commodities. Indeed, the
United States now purchases commodities for donation on the open
market. In today's political and economic climate, the need to provide
societal stability, avoid failed states, prevent terrorist breeding
grounds, and bolster America's image abroad has never been more
important. Our in-kind food aid programs are needed now more than at
any time in their history. Hunger is a powerful and destabilizing
force, and America faces a convergence of terrorist and other security
threats from failed and unstable states that feed on ill will toward
our Nation. The United Nations World Food Program tells us that in
recent years the food insecure have been hit by a ``perfect storm'' of
increases in food prices coupled with export restrictions imposed by
traditional regional and local food exporters. Here at home, the ranks
of long term unemployed have soared. U.S. food aid programs not only
further our humanitarian and food security goals by allowing Americans
to contribute to the needy in a tangible way, but the programs also
provide stable jobs for Americans.
food aid versus cash donations for ``local and regional purchases''
Food for Peace, which provides farm products grown in the United
States to millions overseas in bags marked as gifts ``From the American
People,'' is a clear and tangible sign of America's concern and
generosity to its recipients. This same ``in-kind'' composition
generates important economic benefits to our Nation--vital jobs in many
industries, farm income, markets for agriculture processors, and
revenue for American transportation providers and ports. It also
generates Federal, State, and local tax revenues, as well as secondary
economic effects, such as farm equipment purchases and farm family
spending in our broader economy. For these reasons, a strong domestic
constituency for food aid, in good economic times and bad, has
sustained America's food aid programs through decades of competing
funding priorities. Furthermore, for over 50 years American agriculture
has provided a dependable source of high-quality nutritious food that
is not always reliably available to ``local'' or ``regional'' markets.
Given the recent food crisis experienced by many nations, in terms of
price, availability, and quality, and considering the recent actions by
some food-exporting nations to halt food exports when domestic price
increases occurred, the amount and dependability of U.S. produced food
aid in Public Law 480 is crucial to our humanitarian assistance effort.
Using American taxpayer dollars to purchase foreign agricultural
commodities would forego the unique benefits of U.S. food aid, such as
predictable food aid supply, unparalleled quality, and good American
jobs, when our country and food-deficit areas need them most.
Nevertheless, additional resources have already been directed to so-
called ``local and regional purchases'': USAID has been provided
hundreds of millions of dollars of new funding for such purchases under
the Foreign Assistance Act through the International Disaster and
Famine Assistance Account and Congress also established a $60 million
CCC-funded USDA pilot program in the 2008 Farm Bill to examine the
potential dangers and benefits of this approach before considering
further expansion of its use in conjunction with a strong in-kind food
aid program centered around American commodities. Additionally, the
U.N. World Food Program operations have wide latitude to purchase grain
from Europe, Australia, and elsewhere.
restoration of title ii food for progress
The title I concessional sales food aid program is an important
tool in the aid ``toolbox''. In order to ensure that countries with the
most dire need have sufficient donated food aid, the coalition
recommends that USDA offer the title I concessional sales program to
countries that can afford it. Title I allows us to leverage our aid
dollars, helping more people in need with our limited budget resources.
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.
conclusions and recommendations
Mr. Chairman, the coalition is committed to maintaining the funding
for America's food aid programs to meet humanitarian needs, enhance the
potential for economic growth in recipient countries, and stimulate the
economy here at home. Our recommendation is to increase, over time,
annual food assistance with a blend of programs drawing upon the unique
strengths of the different U.S. food aid program authorities.
Specifically, the coalition respectfully recommends the following:
--Full up-front funding of title II at the $2.5 billion authorized by
law, which is consistent with the fiscal year 2008 and fiscal
year 2009 appropriation levels, and should serve to help avoid
the cycle of emergency supplemental appropriations for this
program.
--Title I/Food for Progress 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.
--Increase funding available for the McGovern-Dole program,
leveraging the special ability of this program to reach
children and to spur long-term development.
Public Law 480 Food for Peace is the world's most successful
foreign assistance program, and has saved countless lives. Its
straightforward delivery of American food to the hungry fills a clear
and immediate need overseas, and its unique architecture has made it a
successful program here at home that has endured for over 50 years.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
America Cargo Transport Corp.
American Maritime Congress
American Maritime Officers
American Maritime Officers' Service
American Peanut Council
American Soybean Association
APL Ltd.
Central Gulf Lines, Inc.
Global Food and Nutrition Inc.
Hapag-Lloyd USA, LLC
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
National Potato Council
Sailors' Union of the Pacific
Seafarers International Union
Sealift, Inc.
Transportation Institute
United Maritime Group, LLC
U.S. Dry Bean Council
U.S. Dry Pea & Lentil Council
U.S. Wheat Associates, Inc.
USA Rice Federation
Waterman Steamship Corporation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA
The Alliance for a Stronger FDA requests at least $2.857 billion
for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for fiscal year 2011. This
request is exclusive of user fees.
We thank the Senate Appropriations Committee for the opportunity to
present our views on the fiscal year 2011 appropriations for the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration. The Alliance has 180 members from every
stakeholder group interested in FDA. Our members include consumer and
patient groups, associations, non-profits, health professions
organizations, individuals and industry. Three former DHHS Secretaries
and six former FDA commissioners are also part of our cause. We are
united in the belief that:
A strong FDA benefits all Americans: Patients, consumers, health
professionals, industry . . . and the whole world benefits, too.
We would like to express our appreciation to the Senate
Appropriations Committee and its Subcommittee Chair, Senator Herb Kohl
and Ranking Member, Senator Sam Brownback. The FDA's appropriation has
gone up significantly over the last 3 years and their support and
leadership has been essential.
Those increases have been critical to strengthening the Agency.
Nonetheless, there remains an extraordinarily large gap between FDA's
responsibilities and FDA's resources. Every year, the Agency's job
becomes more complex scientifically and more difficult to implement.
New laws affecting FDA are enacted with some regularity, further
straining the FDA's ability to meet the expectations of the Congress
and the American people.
There are a number of legislative initiatives this year that would
further expand the responsibilities of the FDA. As a very broad-based
coalition, we take no position on the merits of any of these.
We are concerned, however, that FDA's appropriation reflect any
further increases in responsibilities. As will be described, we are
recommending a $495 million increase or more for the Agency. This is
the amount we believe is needed to make further progress against
existing responsibilities. Any new legislation needs to come with the
assurance that there will be larger ``budget authority'' appropriations
to cover the cost of the additional work.
We remind the committee that FDA's appropriation is quite small,
especially when matched against its jurisdiction over one-quarter of
consumer spending, 80 percent of the food supply and all of the drugs,
biologics, medical devices, animal drugs, cosmetics and dietary
supplements used anywhere in the United States. FDA must also deal with
the food and medical products that are sourced from overseas. Despite 3
years with appropriations above the break-even point, the FDA still
gets only $2 billion per year. There cannot be many agencies in the
U.S. Government that have such a vast scope of responsibilities and so
few dollars to get the job done.
As a way to sum up many points about the Agency, we have 10 things
that we hope policymakers will know and remember about FDA:
--FDA is a comparatively small agency with an appropriation: just
$2.35 billion in 2010 to regulate products that represent a
quarter of all consumer spending.
--Twenty-five years ago, FDA and CDC were the same size; today the
CDC budget is nearly 2\1/2\ times as large.
--A strong FDA is good for the U.S. economy and for our balance of
trade.
--FDA is an integral part of our response to public health
emergencies, including defense against bioterrorism.
--FDA's appropriation is almost entirely staff costs, requiring
nearly 6 percent increase each year to sustain program levels.
--After 3 years of good increases (thank you, Congress), FDA staffing
levels from the 2010 appropriation have only just been restored
to the previous high-level achieved in 1994.
--User fees serve valuable functions, but they are targeted and
support only specific activities. They don't strengthen the FDA
in carrying out its overall public health mission.
--All FDA stakeholders support a stronger FDA (consumers, patients,
health professionals, and industry).
--FDA's responsibilities increase each year--through new mandates,
globalization, scientific complexity.
--FDA touches every American multiple times each day. Today's
investment (2 cents per day per American) is a pittance
compared to the benefit of a strong FDA and the risk of an
underfunded FDA.
The Alliance often compares the FDA's budget to that of the
Montgomery County school system's budget. The Superintendent of Schools
and the FDA Commissioner had offices less than three miles apart before
the Commissioner moved to White Oak. When the Superintendent looks out
his window, he reflects on the educational needs between Takoma Park
and Germantown. When the Commissioner looks out his window, he reflects
on the food and medical product needs of the entire world. Yet, until
last year, the Superintendent had a significantly larger budget to
spend than the Commissioner.
More than 80 percent of the FDA's budget is people-related. This
includes salary, benefits, rent, telecom, training, office equipment,
travel, etc. There are no grants to pull back if the money comes up
short. Instead, over much of the last 20 years, when FDA's funding has
been inadequate, the result has been layoffs, hiring freezes and buy-
outs. Now that the Agency's funding situation has improved, there are
still many FDA managers concerned that this year's hires may need to be
dismissed if next year's appropriation doesn't continue to grow.
At this point, FDA needs more than $100 million more each year just
to sustain the prior year's FTEs and program initiatives. Substantial
dollars are needed above that level to help close the gap between
responsibilities and resources.
The solution, which is also our goal, is to strengthen FDA's
ability to operate a modern, scientifically based regulatory program.
To do so, the FDA needs to be provided with resources to rebuild the
infrastructure and assure the safety of foods and cosmetics and the
safety and efficacy of drugs and medical devices.
In the mid-1980s, FDA and CDC had similar budgets (about $400
million each in fiscal year 1985). In fiscal year 2010, CDC has a
budget authority appropriation of $6.37 billion dollars, a compound
annual growth rate greater than 11 percent. In comparison, FDA has a
budget of $2.35 billion, a compound annual growth rate of about 7
percent.
The impact is particularly pronounced when the differences are
graphed and the upward slopes compared (below). The chart is in nominal
dollars. If we were to look at constant dollars, CDC is a substantially
bigger agency than 25 years ago. In FDA's case, the net grown over the
same period has been insubstantial and much of the growth is in the
last 3 years.
We are not suggesting that FDA should have a $6 billion budget.
Rather, the degree to which FDA has fallen behind is often hard to see,
because the Agency is being compared to itself. In this comparison, it
is dramatic and can lead to only one conclusion: FDA is not funded to
meet its responsibilities as a public health and regulatory agency.
We do not know what the right number for FDA is . . . only that it
is significantly more than the current budget. Large increases for a
number of years are going to be needed.
For the immediate timeframe, the Alliance for a Stronger FDA
requests a $495 million increase or more for the FDA in fiscal year
2011. We believe that the President's budget request of $154 million is
a step in the right direction, but substantially below what is needed.
Below, our request is broken down by centers and major functions. We
show fiscal year 2008, 2009 and 2010 for comparison. This recognizes
that growth over the last three has changed the direction of the
Agency. More will be needed . . . this year, next year and thereafter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2011
2008 actual Fiscal year Fiscal year recommendation
Function note: budget authority only, by center (December 2009 final 2010 final of the
2007) (March 2009) (October 2009) Alliance for a
Stronger FDA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food............................................ $510 million $649 million $784 million $955 million
Human Drugs..................................... 353 million 413 million 465 million 580 million
Biologics....................................... 155 million 183 million 206 million 255 million
Animal Drugs/Feed............................... 97 million 116 million 135 million 165 million
Devices & Radiological Health................... 238 million 280 million 315 million 385 million
Natl. Ctr. for Toxicological Research........... 44 million 52 million 59 million 72 million
HQ, Office of Commissioner/Other................ 97 million 121 million 144 million 183 million
Rent and Facilities............................. 220 million 223 million 237 million 250 million
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, Salaries and Expenses.............. 1.714 billion 2.039 billion 2.346 billion 2.857 billion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have allocated new money to building and facility rental, which
is more than 20 percent of the FDA's budget. We are told that the FDA
will reach a point where White Oak (even with the new building being
constructed) and College Park will barely fit the FTE's that have been
authorized and/or will be transferring from Parklawn and other
facilities that are closing. A more substantial increase in rental
costs may be needed in fiscal year 2011. We hope the Committee will
follow this closely and assure that rental costs are fully funded.
Increases in rental costs should not be covered by tapping into new
program monies or by disproportionate allocations from user fees.
New monies from this year and last year are now flowing into the
FDA and are being translated into recruitment, hiring, training and
deployment. Because of the nature of FDA jobs, many of the new hires
may not reduce division workloads for upwards of a year. This is a slow
process, but necessary to grow and strengthen FDA.
Going forward, the Alliance is committed to working with the
Congress and FDA to ensure:
--Transparency in how new appropriated monies are spent, and
--Clear communications from FDA about the public health benefits that
have been achieved with the new funding.
In closing, the Alliance for a Stronger FDA reiterates its
appreciation for the efforts of Committee members and their staffs to
change the course of the FDA. They are strengthening the Agency and
guiding it toward success.
We remain available to the Committee to provide information and
analysis at any time.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Commodity Distribution Association
(ACDA)
On behalf of the American Commodity Distribution Association
(ACDA), I respectfully submit this statement regarding the budget
request of the Food and Nutrition Service for inclusion in the
subcommittee's official record. ACDA members appreciate the
subcommittee's support for these vital programs. We also thank you for
this opportunity to share our experiences and recommendations with you.
We urge the subcommittee to maintain administrative expense funding
for the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) at $74.5 million; to
make TEFAP food purchase dollars available for 2 fiscal years; to
approve the Administration's budget request for the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program, and to evaluate alternative approaches for
the Department of Defense Fresh Program.
ACDA is a non-profit professional trade association, dedicated to
the growth and improvement of USDA's Commodity Food Distribution
Program. ACDA members include: State agencies that distribute USDA-
purchased commodity foods; agricultural organizations; industry;
associate members; recipient agencies, such as schools and soup
kitchens; and allied organizations, such as anti-hunger groups. ACDA
members are responsible for distributing over 1.5 billion pounds of
USDA-purchased commodity foods annually through programs such as
National School Lunch Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program
(TEFAP), Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), Commodity Supplemental
Food Program (CSFP), Charitable Institution Program, and Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR).
maintain tefap administrative funds at $74.5 million, as provided for
fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010
We urge the subcommittee to maintain TEFAP Administrative Funds at
$74.5 million, as provided for fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010
when ARRA funds were added to the regular appropriation.
Food banks around the Nation are in great need. The number of
Americans who are turning to food banks for assistance continues to
increase. The Congress appropriated $49.5 million for TEFAP
Administrative Funds in both fiscal year 2009 and 2010, and, through
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, supplemented these amounts
with an additional $25 million. These resources have been used
responsibly, and are sincerely appreciated.
Donations to food banks are declining as many individuals and
businesses no longer have the ability to be as supportive as they had
been in the past. One of our members, Hunger Solutions Minnesota,
reports that one-half to two-thirds of the food distributed by
Minnesota food banks is from TEFAP. TEFAP has allowed Minnesota to
distribute more food to more people with no impact on their budget.
Minnesota Food Shelves are able to procure this much needed product
from the food banking system without paying for the shared maintenance
or transportation fees. Most Minnesota food shelves are small nonprofit
organizations run by volunteers with thrifty budgets. They have very
limited capacity for raising more funds to cover this potential loss of
funding.
In Florida, TEFAP operators are distributing over 39 million pounds
of USDA food at no charge (administrative, shared maintenance, etc.) to
their sub-distributors. The TEFAP Administrative funds help pay for
that distribution which often includes delivery to sub-distributors
more than 100 miles away. The additional funding has gone a long way
toward compensating the TEFAP Recipient Agencies for the cost of
trucking, fuel, storing the additional TEFAP food, and other related
costs, without passing those costs on to sub-distributors like food
pantries, soup kitchens, and shelters. This in turn helps those
emergency feeding organizations which would otherwise have to find the
resources to help defray the costs of acquiring the food, picking it up
from the Recipient Agency, and other necessary activities in order to
assist the needy residents of their communities.
The Food Bank Association of New York State believes that the
fiscal year 2011 budget proposal may result in statewide cuts in excess
of $1.4 million, adversely impacting the three million people served by
almost 2,500 emergency food programs throughout the State.
Other ACDA members tell us that if TEFAP expense funds are reduced
as effectively proposed by the fiscal year 2011 budget request, they
will have to accept less food to reduce shipping/warehousing expenses,
and will likely have to cut reimbursement to local distributors. These
reimbursements are key to maintaining distribution sites, especially in
rural distribution sites.
We recognize that States have had the ability to convert a portion
of their food funds to administrative funds, and have done so. We
appreciate this flexibility, but must respectfully point out that even
if this flexibility is continued, TEFAP operators will experience a
significant reduction in available administrative expense funds that
jeopardizes their ability to provide essential food assistance to needy
Americans.
Sec. 4201 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public
Law 110-246) increased the authorization for TEFAP Administrative
Expense funds from $60 million to $100 million, recognizing the need
for increased expense funds to responsibly manage increased TEFAP food
supplies. Our request for $74.5 million, is, therefore, not an increase
over the total amounts provided in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year
2010, and is well within the amounts authorized.
make tefap food dollars available for two fiscal years
We urge the subcommittee to make TEFAP food dollars available for 2
fiscal years, as was done under ARRA.
While the agencies of the Department of Agriculture work closely
with food banks to provide as much food for distribution as possible,
there are occasions when food dollars are at jeopardy through no fault
of recipient agencies.
If food orders are cancelled by either USDA or vendors for any
reason near the end of the Federal fiscal year, State agencies must
either purchase whatever items might be available through USDA, or lose
these end-of-year balances.
At the end of fiscal year 2009 Florida had an ARRA TEFAP balance of
$1.6 million on September 28, 2009 due to the cancellation of cheese
orders that day. Florida's regular TEFAP balance was $218,023. On
September 8, 2009 the TEFAP entitlement balance in New York was just
over $12,000. On September 28 it was $415,000 due to the significant
cancellations and deletions of truckloads of commodity foods. On July
28, 2009, New York's ARRA balance was $11,000. On September 28 it was
$481,000. Other ACDA members have told us of similar experiences in
their States.
Food banks are working diligently to use every dollar responsibly
because every dollar is needed. When ARRA was passed, TEFAP food
dollars were allowed to be carried over from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal
year 2010. This procedure helped food bank operators to make
responsible decisions and to take maximum advantage of available
resources.
We urge the committee to make TEFAP food dollars available for 2
years, and urge the Secretary of Agriculture to allow those States who
made responsible efforts to use their TEFAP Food dollars to roll over
to the next fiscal year balances unexpended through no fault of the
TEFAP operator.
acda supports the fiscal year 2011 budget request for the commodity
supplemental food program
ACDA is pleased to support the fiscal year 2011 budget request of
$176,788,000 for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). The
Congress in fiscal year 2010 once again demonstrated its support for
this important program with a funding level that allowed seven States
with approved plans to begin serving eligible individuals within those
States, while allowing for needed caseload expansion in the 32 States,
the District of Columbia, and 2 Indian Tribal Organizations previously
offering the program.
While we understand that there may be as many as four additional
States considering making application for their own CSFP, at this time
we believe the President's request will fully fund the current
caseload, including the caseload provided to the seven new States. It
may be necessary at a later date to add to the budget request should
USDA approve State plans.
acda requests the evaluation of alternative approaches for dod fresh
There is broad consensus that improving the nutritional well-being
of Americans, particularly children, includes increasing fruit and
vegetable consumption, including fresh items. USDA's commodity program
is constrained in its ability to distribute fresh foods.
However, in the 1990s the Department developed a partner
relationship with the Department of Defense to utilize some of the
Federal commodity entitlement for school meal programs to allow school
districts to purchase through the DOD distribution system. This
program, DOD Fresh, was very successful.
Changes in the DOD procurement and distribution program which have
outsourced these procurement activities have had a deleterious effect
on the school program. This change has also created a situation where
each school that participates must pay a fee to access the DOD secure
ordering system.
The Secretary has worked to ameliorate these fees, approximately $3
million per year, in the short term, but this is a temporary fix. We
believe that there may be an alternate approach that will restore the
many benefits of the original DOD Fresh program.
We are asking the Committee to direct the Secretary to evaluate
alternative approaches for replacing DOD Fresh including, but not
limited to, developing an analog program through the Agricultural
Marketing Service, and report back to the Committee on these options.
We look forward to continuing to partner with you and USDA in the
delivery of these needed services.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF)
The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) has identified five
general areas for increased emphasis and funding for United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs in the fiscal year 2011
agriculture spending bill. They are:
--Programs that enhance and improve food safety and protection;
--Programs that expand domestic and export markets for agriculture;
--Programs that strengthen rural communities;
--Programs that improve USDA efficiency; and
--Research Priorities.
Farm Bureau strongly opposes any cuts to funding for the farm
safety net. Such cuts would break a 5-year commitment made to America's
farmers and ranchers in the 2008 farm bill. Producers have made
business decisions based on this contract with the government, and to
break these commitments would be destabilizing to a rural economy that
is already impacted by this country's severe recession and credit
crisis.
programs that enhance and improve food safety and protection
Americans spend more than $1 trillion annually on food--nearly half
of it in restaurants, schools and other places outside the home.
Consumers have a reasonable expectation that the food products they buy
are safe. The continued safety of food is crucial to consumers, as well
as production agriculture and the food industry. AFBF believes that
sufficient, reliable Federal funding for the government's food and feed
safety and protection functions is vital to this effort.
Therefore, we recommend that funding be increased for food
protection at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and at the Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and directed to:
--Increased education and training of inspectors;
--Additional science-based inspection, targeted according to risk;
--Research and development of scientifically based rapid testing
procedures and tools;
--Accurate and timely responses to outbreaks that identify
contaminated products, remove them from the market and minimize
disruption to producers; and
--Indemnification for producers who suffer marketing losses due to
inaccurate government-advised recalls or warnings.
We also support authorized funding of $2.5 million for the Food
Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD). FARAD aids veterinarians in
establishing science-based recommendations for drug withdrawal
intervals, critical for both food safety and animal health. No other
government program provides or duplicates the food safety information
FARAD provides to the public. Without the critical FARAD program,
producers may be forced to euthanize animals or dispose of meat, milk
and eggs due to the lack of withdrawal information.
programs that expand domestic and export markets for agriculture
America is increasingly committed to being a Nation fueled by
clean, renewable, domestic energy. Biofuels are a crucial to this
effort and create new domestic markets for our commodities. AFBF
supports the research, production and promotion of agricultural
products into home-grown fuels. We urge you to provide $10,000,000 for
the establishment of Regional Biofuels Feedstocks Research and
Demonstration Centers in USDA.
In order to take full advantage of the market opportunities offered
through trade agreements AFBF supports funding at authorized levels
for:
--The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) to maintain services that
expand agricultural export markets. We urge continued support
for the Office of the Secretary for trade negotiations and
biotechnology resources.
--The Market Access Program, the Foreign Market Development Program,
the Emerging Markets Program and the Technical Assistance for
Specialty Crops program that are effective export development
and expansion programs. These programs have resulted in
increased demand for U.S. agriculture and food products abroad
and should be fully funded.
--Public Law 480 programs which 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.
As trade increases between countries, so do does the threat of new
invasive and noxious pests that can destroy America's agricultural and
natural resources. Therefore, we support full funding for the following
Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) programs:
--The APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine personnel and facilities,
especially the plant inspection stations, that 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 that 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 Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS) that 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.
Funding for 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 International Food for Education Program is an effective
platform for delivering severely needed food aid and educational
assistance and should be fully funded.
programs that strengthen rural communities
The lack of high-speed, modern telecommunications systems in rural
America hinders its residents' access to educational, medical and
business opportunities, and therefore hampers the economic growth of
rural America. We support funding for loans and grants administered by
the Rural Utilities Service to increase rural broadband capacity and
telecommunications services and to fund the Distance Learning and
Telemedicine Program.
Rural entrepreneurs often lack access to the capital and technical
assistance necessary to start new businesses. These new ventures are
needed for rural communities to sustain themselves and contribute to
our national economy. AFBF supports funding for USDA Rural Development
(RD) programs that foster new business development in rural
communities. These programs include Value-Added Agricultural Producer
Grants, the Rural Innovation Initiative, the Rural Microentrepreneur
Assistance Program, and Business and Industry Direct and Guaranteed
Loans.
Many rural communities lack access to the tax base necessary to
provide modern community facilities like fire stations. Farm Bureau
support funding for RD's Community Facility Direct and Guaranteed
Loans, which finance the construction, enlargement or improvement of
essential community facilities in rural areas and small towns.
Renewable energy production holds great promise as a means to help
America's farmers and rural communities contribute to our national
economy and enhance our national security. We support increasing
funding for the Renewable Energy for America Program (REAP). REAP
offers grants, guaranteed loans and combination grant/guaranteed loans
for agricultural producers to purchase renewable energy systems and
energy efficiency improvements, as well as offer funding for energy
audits and feasibility studies.
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. We support funding for
this important program.
AFBF supports funding for and opposes any effort to eliminate the
Resource Conservation and Development program. This vital 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.
AFBF supports full funding for Agriculture in the Classroom, a
national grassroots program coordinated by the USDA. This worthy
program helps students gain a greater awareness of the role of
agriculture in the economy and society, so that they may become
citizens who support wise agricultural policies.
programs that improve usda efficiency
Farm Bureau supports providing $95.3 million to improve computer
technology in the Farm Service Agency (FSA). FSA currently operates on
the oldest technology system within USDA and one of the oldest systems
in the entire Federal Government. These outdated systems create
enormous inefficiencies throughout the department, and it is unclear
how long these antiquated systems can continue to support increasingly
complex farm programs. Systems across agencies under USDA jurisdiction
cannot communicate with each other, which could lead to improper
payments and often requires duplicative paperwork and additional labor
hours. Upgrading FSA computer technology now will lead to greater
efficiencies down the road and could prevent a future system failure.
research priorities
Farm Bureau utilizes commodity advisory committees to identify USDA
program areas important to specific agricultural industries. Based on
the recommendations of these advisory groups, Farm Bureau supports:
--Funding for efforts to control, prevent and eradicate Citrus
Greening Disease including funding for research, public and
industry outreach and border monitoring.
--Funding to conduct research on Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) as
authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill including research on the
affects of pesticides, viruses, parasitic mites and other
distress management issues.
--Appropriating $2.25 million, as authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill,
to conduct a National Honeybee Pest Survey to identify what
pests, diseases, viruses and pathogens are present in the
United States.
--Funding for research to determine the impact on public lands sheep
and goat herds of species that currently exist, have been
reintroduced, or are planning to be introduced for the first
time.
--Funding for research for soybean diseases using sentinel plots and
mapping.
--Funding for research for the USDA-ARS Floriculture and Nursery
Research Initiative and ``regionalization'' of research
throughout the land grant system.
--Funding for genomic research on the peanut plant.
--Funding to support Texas Cattle Fever Tick control and eradication
programs and to encourage development of new user-friendly
products and management practices.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)
PRIMARY AF&PA RECOMMENDATIONS
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Account Program 2010 AF&PA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food and Drug Administration. Center for Food $236.600 $259.400
Safety and
Applied
Nutrition
(CFSAN).
Animal and Plant Health Lacey Act (\1\) 5.500
Inspection Service. Enforcement.
Animal and Plant Health Emerging Plant 158.769 176.269
Inspection Service. Pests.
National Institute of Food McIntire-Stennis 29.000 35.000
and Agriculture. Cooperative
Forestry
Research.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No funding specifically designated.
introduction
The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) is the national
trade association of the forest products industry, representing forest
landowners and pulp, paper, packaging, and wood products manufacturers.
AF&PA companies make products essential for everyday life from
renewable and recyclable resources.
The U.S. forest products industry accounts for approximately six
percent of total domestic manufacturing GDP (putting it on par with the
automotive and plastics industries). Forest industry companies produce
$200 billion in products annually, employ one million people, and
provide $54 billion in annual payroll. The industry is among the top 10
manufacturing sector employers in 48 States. Lumber, panel, pulp, and
paper mills are frequently the economic hub of local communities,
making the industry's health critical to the economic vitality of
hundreds of rural areas across the country.
Declining timber harvests from Federal lands have resulted in
severe job losses in many forestry-dependent communities. Many actions
are needed to help preserve the industry's remaining jobs and
contribute to the broader revitalization of the economy. Congress and
the Administration must continue to improve credit markets, stimulate
demand for housing, and craft policies that recognize the significant
contributions made by the wood and paper industries towards renewable
energy and climate goals. Within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee,
continued resources for approval of paper-based food packaging,
protecting forest health, and providing adequate resources to enforce
existing trade laws are essential. Specific recommendations follow.
food and drug administration--food contact notification program
The Food Contact Notification (FCN) program protects consumer
health, food safety and quality while providing packaging manufacturers
with an efficient process which is less burdensome than the food
additive approval process. It has allowed packaging manufacturers to
bring new products to market which are more environmentally friendly
and have extended product shelf life, thereby increasing consumer
value.
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget includes $2.5 billion for
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On a current authorities basis,
the budget proposes $259.4 million in funding for FDA's Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), an increase of $22.8 million from
fiscal year 2010 funding levels. The FDA's Congressional Budget
Justification states that the FDA budget request assumes continued
funding for the Food Contact Notification Program. AF&PA appreciates
that the subcommittee has previously rejected proposals to eliminate
the FCN program. AF&PA supports the Administration's budget request
which ensures continued funding of the Food Contact Notification
Program.
animal and plant health inspection service--lacey act enforcement
The 2008 Farm Bill amended the Lacey Act (16 USC 3371 et seq.) to
make it unlawful to trade wood products or other plants taken in
violation of the laws of either a U.S. State or foreign country. This
ground-breaking legislation is already beginning to influence the way
companies make sourcing decisions and monitor their supply chains. Full
and effective implementation and enforcement of the Lacey Act will
enable American forest product companies to compete fairly in the
global marketplace, help keep jobs in the United States, deter the
destructive impacts of illegal logging on forests and forest-dependent
communities in developing countries, and reinforce initiatives to
mitigate climate change.
The law requires U.S. importers of wood products to file a
declaration identifying the species name and country of harvest--a
critical measure intended by the law's sponsors to increase supply
chain transparency and assist Federal agencies in fair and strong
enforcement. The prohibition and the declaration requirement affect a
wide array of American industries, so it is critical that the
declaration process generates data in a streamlined, cost-effective
manner without unduly burdening legitimate trade. To that end, APHIS--
which is responsible for implementing the declaration provision--needs
$5.5 million in funding to establish an electronic declarations
database and to add internal capacity to perform data analysis needed
for monitoring and enforcement purposes.
AF&PA supports $5.5 million to provide for implementation of the
Lacey Act, as amended by the 2008 Farm Bill.
animal and plant health inspection service--emerging plant pests
As world trade continues to expand, global weather patterns shift,
and an increasingly affluent world population has the ability to travel
to--and demand products from--the far corners of the globe, the
inadvertent, yet inevitable introduction of nonnative pests and
diseases into the United States continues. Additional funding is
vitally needed to aid in combating pests such as the Asian longhorn
beetle, the Emerald Ash borer, and the Sirex woodwasp, as well as
diseases such as Phytopthora ramorum. These are but a sampling of the
diseases which harm commercial timber stands, community parks, and
private forest landowners. American citizens will most certainly bear
the cost of combating these and other emergent threats. We believe that
a comprehensive, coordinated response to each is more effective and
more economical.
AF&PA supports additional funding for APHIS Emerging Plant Pests
and urge the provision of at least an additional $17.5 million to aid
in combating these, and other pests and diseases.
national institute of food and agriculture--mc intire-stennis
cooperative forestry research
Approximately one-third of the United States is forested and these
forests enhance our quality of life and economic vitality and are an
invaluable source of renewable bioproducts, outdoor recreation, clean
water, fish and wildlife habitat, and carbon sequestration. Sustaining
these forests in a healthy and productive condition requires a strong,
continuing commitment to scientific research and graduate education.
Foundational financial support for university-based forestry research
and graduate education comes from the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative
Forestry program, funded through the USDA's National Institute of Food
and Agriculture (NIFA). Funds are 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.
Additional funding is needed to:
--Provide the additional scientific discoveries needed to address
critical forest issues such as fires, storms, climate change,
insects, diseases, urbanization, fragmentation, and lost
economic opportunities.
--Develop new knowledge and innovations to sustain healthy,
productive forests and address the challenges facing forest
owners, forest products manufacturers and all Americans who
benefit from our forest resources.
--Support research capacity within each State to address issues that
are essential to their private forest owners, and develop new
opportunities for economic benefit from their forests.
AF&PA requests $35 million for the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative
Forestry Research Program.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Honey Producers Association, Inc.
(AHPA)
Chairman Kohl and members of the subcommittee, my name is Kenneth
Haff, 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 to
bring to your attention the continued threats faced by American
beekeepers and the billions of dollars in U.S. agriculture that rely
upon honeybee pollination services. With those threats in mind, we
respectfully request an appropriation that meets the needs anticipated
by the 2008 Farm Bill authorization of $20 million in additional
research funds to combat CCD and to conduct other essential honeybee
research through the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and other
agencies at the Department of Agriculture.
As I speak to you today, U.S. beekeepers are facing the most
extraordinary of challenges. Colony Collapse Disorder (``CCD'') has
continued to ravage bee colonies across the United States, moving from
one hive to another in unpredictable patterns. The result has been the
death of up to 90 percent of the bee colonies in affected apiaries. In
early 2007, the National Research Council at the National Academy of
Sciences characterized the beekeeping industry as being in ``crisis
mode''--a point echoed and re-emphasized in a 2008 action plan
regarding honeybee threats. Hundreds of news articles and many in-depth
media reports have continued to chronicle the looming disaster facing
American beekeepers and the producers of over 90 fruit, vegetable and
fiber crops that rely on honeybee pollination. The President's own
budget documents for fiscal year 2011 state, ``The beekeeping industry,
and growers that depend on the honey bee for pollination are facing a
crisis because of CCD, a new syndrome that appeared throughout the
country in late 2006, killing 25 percent of hives nationally and 80 to
90 percent of hives in some apiaries. Mitigation will depend on
determining the cause of the syndrome, and finding practical, cost-
effective solutions useful to the bee industry.''
However, despite extensive and coordinated work by experts from
government, academia and the private sector, the definitive causes of
and solutions for CCD have yet to be identified. In fact, USDA is yet
unable to provide even a definition for CCD for purposes of insurance
recovery for associated losses. In a March 15, 2010 Washington Post
article entitled, ``Bees are busier than ever as disease besieges
colonies'', Adrian Higgins writes that ``more than 3 years after
beekeepers started seeing the sudden disappearance of hive populations,
scientists have yet to find the cause--let alone the fix--for a
condition called colony collapse disorder (CCD). Meanwhile, the
commercial beekeeping industry is struggling to provide pollination
services to the nations' farmers. One-third of food crops rely on
insect pollination.'' One of the most respected editors to follow honey
matters, Kim Flotsam, reported in his March issue of ``Bee Culture''
that ``incidences of colony losses to CCD and other stresses this
spring have been much higher than the last 2 years, and some predict
when all is said and counted, will be the worst year since the malady
raised its ugly head.'' This assessment is consistent with the
experiences of the AHPA membership.
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 that provide the first line
of defense against exotic parasitic mites, Africanized bees, viruses,
brood diseases, pests, pathogens and other conditions. 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.
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. Again, in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus
appropriations bill, Congress preserved funding for the Weslaco, Texas
ARS research facility despite a recommendation in the President's
fiscal year 2009 budget proposal to close that facility. In fiscal year
2010, the Congress increased funding by $1.5 million for the ARS labs
and added $3 million for the work of the Department of Agriculture's
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services (CSREES),
now known as the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).
Those were wise decisions. Without these labs, and without the work of
other researches supported by Federal funds, the American honeybee may
not have survived the various above-mentioned threats, and the
infrastructure would not exist today upon which an aggressive research
campaign may continue to be built.
For fiscal year 2011, President Obama has requested an additional
$500,000 in increased funding for CCD research. We thank the President
and we urge this subcommittee to continue in its long demonstrated
commitment to addressing the crises before us by supporting the
President's request and adding desperately needed funding. However, we
believe strongly that an increase of $500,000 does not come close to
meeting the growing demands imposed by CCD and other threats to
honeybee health. Instead, 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 at
least $3 million in additional funding for ARS laboratories and to
achieve across the agencies a full $20 million in new research funds
dedicated toward CCD and other honeybee health research projects. As
you know, the 2008 Farm Bill included an authorization of $100 million
over 5 years for such initiatives. A $20 million appropriation in
fiscal year 2011 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. While we do not otherwise specify the locations of the
labs where this research is to be performed, we do believe it is
important that at least $500,000 be provided in support of the genome
work done at the Baton Rouge lab on Russian bees that have developed a
resistance to varroa mites.
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 are the largest single crop
requiring honeybee pollination. More than 1 million honeybee hives are
needed to pollinate the 600,000 acres of almond groves that line
California's Central Valley. Thus, nearly half of the managed honey-
producing colonies in the United States are involved in pollinating
California almonds in February and March of each year.
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
has noted, the fate of California's almond crop rests ``on the slender
back of the embattled honeybee.'' Over the past year, both beekeepers
and almond growers have struggled to meet almond crop pollination
demands, forced to bring inadequate bee supplies to the crops. Many
expect that the almond crop will suffer noticeably this season as a
result, an added drain on the United States economy at a time when we
can least afford it.
ongoing and new critical research
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.
CCD, while the most severe, is only the most recent threat to the bee
population. Unfortunately, the specific cause of CCD and treatments for
it remain elusive to both beekeepers and scientists. The 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. 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.
AHPA, other industry officials, 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 of at least $20 million to combat CCD and conduct other
essential honeybee research. These funds should be allocated in
accordance with authorizations provided in the 2008 Farm Bill.
Specifically, the funds should be divided among the following
Department of Agriculture agencies and programs: (1) the four ARS Bee
Research Laboratories for new personnel, facility improvement, and
additional research; (2) the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
to conduct a nationwide honeybee pest and pathogen surveillance
program; (3) the ARS Area Wide CCD Research Program divided between the
Beltsville, MD and the Tucson, Arizona research laboratories to
identify causes and solutions for CCD in affected States; (4) the NIFA
to fund extension and research grants to investigate the following:
honey bee biology, immunology, and ecology; honey bee genomics; native
bee crop pollination and habitat conservation; native bee taxonomy and
ecology; pollination biology; sub-lethal effects of insecticides,
herbicides, and fungicides on honey bees, native pollinators, and other
beneficial insects; the effects of genetically modified crops,
including the interaction of genetically modified crops with honey bees
and other native pollinators; honey, bumble, and other native bee
parasites and pathogens effects on other native pollinators; and (5)
the additional ARS research facilities in New York, Florida,
California, Utah, and Texas for research on honey and native bee
physiology, insect pathology, insect chemical ecology, and honey and
native bee toxicology.
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 prior to CCD was considered
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. Additional funding
for the ARS research laboratory at Baton Rouge, in particular, will
assure that this critically important work goes forward.
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 causes 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 four 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
its 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, 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 the 2008 Farm Bill. In addition to
increased resources for ARS research, these experts pressed for new
funding, through NIFA, 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 alarming lack
of accurate information about the condition of U.S. bee colonies.
Unfortunately, these programs are not yet funded to the level expected
in 2008.
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 NIFA would go a long way toward achieving
this goal.
NIFA 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 NIFA 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.
Finally, these longstanding and worsening threats 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. Ironically,
scientists and industry leaders have since concluded that there is
likely a correlation between the introduction of foreign bees and the
emergence of CCD, the newest and greatest challenge to the survival of
American honeybees. While researchers continue in their exhaustive
effort to isolate the specific causes of CCD, the AHPA strongly urges
the Congress to work with the Department of Agriculture to ensure that
exotic bees and the threats they pose are restricted from importation
into the United States. Under current law, the Department of
Agriculture has the duty to refuse a shipment's entry into the United
States where the export certificate identifies a bee disease or
parasite of concern to the United States or an undesirable species or
subspecies of honeybee, including the Oriental honeybee or ``Apis
cerana'' (7 CFR 322.6(a)(2) (2004)). In the case of Australian
honeybees, officials in that country have detected the presence of the
Apis cerana honeybee throughout their country, a species known to
harbor parasitic mites and possibly viruses that do not currently exist
in the United States.
conclusion
In conclusion, we wish to thank you again for your past support of
honeybee research and for your understanding of the critical importance
of these ARS laboratories. By way of summary, in fiscal year 2011, the
American Honey Producers Association strongly encourages at least $20
million in funding for CCD and other honeybee research spread among the
four ARS Honeybee Research Laboratories, other ARS research facilities
across the country, the NIFA at the Department of Agriculture, and the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Specifically, we urge at
least an additional $3 million in funding for the ARS research
laboratories in fiscal year 2011, including a $500,000 increase for
high priority, specialized genetic work with Russian bees to be
performed at the Baton Rouge laboratory. AHPA also opposes importation
of Australian honeybees. 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
(AIHEC)
On behalf of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
(AIHEC) and the 32 tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) that compose
the list of 1994 Institutions, thank you for this opportunity to share
our funding requests for fiscal year 2011.
summary of requests
We respectfully request the following funding levels for fiscal
year 2011 for our land grant programs established within the USDA
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and the Rural
Development mission area. In NIFA, we request: $8 million for the 1994
Institutions' competitive Extension grants program; $5 million for the
1994 Institutions' competitive Research grants program; a minimum of
$3.342 million for the higher education equity grants; and a $12
million payment into the Native American endowment fund. In the Rural
Development--Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP) we request that
the separate TCU Essential Community Facilities grants program be
retained and that $5 million be appropriated each year for the next 5
fiscal years to help the TCUs to address the critical facilities and
infrastructure needs that increase their 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,
148 years after enactment of the first land grant legislation, the 1994
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 1994 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. The vast majority of the 1994 Institutions
is 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 21 percent
of their 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 TCUs, 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 economic potential
In the past, due to lack of expertise and training, millions of
acres on Indian reservations lay fallow, under-used, or had been
developed through methods that caused irreparable damage. The Equity in
Educational Land Grant Status Act of 1994 is addressing this situation
and is our hope for the continued improvement of our reservation lands.
Our current land grant programs remain small, yet very important to us.
With increased capacity and program funding, we will become even more
fundamental contributors to the agricultural base of the Nation and the
world.
Competitive Extension Grants Programs.--In fiscal year 2011, the
1994 Institutions' extension programs, which 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, is our first priority for increased 1994 land grant program
funding. Last year, $4,321,000 was appropriated for the 1994
Institutions' competitive grants for extension services. Without
adequate funding the 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 is not duplicative
of the Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program, formerly known as
the Extension Indian Reservation Program (EIRP) that is administered by
State land grant institutions. Funding for extension services at the
1994 Land Grants is extremely modest. The 1994 Institutions have
applied their resourcefulness for making the most of every dollar they
have at their disposal by leveraging funds to maximize their programs
whenever possible. Two examples of effective 1994 extension programs
include: Extension activities at the College of Menominee Nation
(Wisconsin) strengthen the sustainable economic development potential
of the Menominee, Stockbridge-Munsee, Oneida, and Potawatomi
Reservations and surrounding communities by increasing distance
education capacity, conducting needs assessment studies, providing
workshops and training sessions, and offering strategic planning
assistance. The Agriculture & Natural Resources Outreach Education
Extension program at Oglala Lakota College (South Dakota), which is
located in one of the poorest counties in the Nation, utilizes
education to promote the environmentally sound use of agriculture and
natural resources by Lakota people. The program coordinates activities
between the college's Agriculture and Natural Resources department,
reservation schools, other tribal departments, South Dakota State
University, and county extension programs. Specific issues addressed by
the program include poverty, isolation, health, cultural dissonance,
and land use practices by Lakota landowners. To continue and expand
successful programs like these, we request that the subcommittee
support this competitive program by appropriating $8 million to sustain
the growth and further success of these essential community-based
extension programs.
1994 Competitive Research Program.--As the 1994 Institutions enter
into partnerships with 1862/1890 land grant institutions through
collaborative research projects, impressive efforts to address economic
development through natural resource management have emerged. The 1994
Research Grants Program illustrates an ideal combination of Federal
resources and TCU-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, the $1,805,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2010
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. Currently, many of our institutions are
conducting applied research, yet finding the resources to continue this
research to meet their communities' needs is a constant challenge. This
research authority opens the door to funding opportunities to maintain
and expand the vital research projects begun at the 1994 Institutions,
but only if adequate funds are secured and sustained. A total research
budget of $1,805,000, for which all 32 of the 1994 Institutions
compete, is vastly insufficient. Priority issue areas currently being
studied at the 1994 Institutions include: sustainable agriculture and
forestry; biotechnology and bioprocessing; agribusiness management and
marketing; plant propagation, including native plant preservation for
medicinal and economic purposes; animal breeding; aquaculture; human
nutrition (including health, obesity, and diabetes); and family,
community, and rural development. For example, the Standing Rock Sioux
Reservation, home to Sitting Bull College and located in North and
South Dakota, is often characterized by high unemployment and health
concerns. The college is conducting a research project to develop a
natural beef enterprise on the reservation that will maximize use of
existing natural resources, allow American Indian students to be
actively involved in research and to produce a healthier agricultural
product for the community. This project combines expertise from Sitting
Bull College, North Dakota State University, and the USDA-ARS Northern
Great Plains Research Laboratory. We strongly urge the subcommittee to
fund this program at a minimum of $5 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 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
educational 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. We
request that the subcommittee appropriate a minimum of $3,342,000 to
allow the 1994 Institutions to build upon their course offerings and
successful activities that have been launched.
Native American Endowment Fund.--Endowment installments that are
paid into the 1994 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 latest annual interest yield
for the 1994 Institutions' Endowment was $3,822,753 and after the USDA
NIFA claimed its standard 4 percent administrative fee, $3,667,843 was
distributed among the eligible 32 TCU Land Grant institutions by
statutory formula. Once again, the administrative fee paid to USDA-NIFA
to distribute the funds was larger than the amount paid to all but nine
of the 1994 Institutions--in other words the USDA-NIFA fee is higher
than the amount paid to 72 percent of 1994 Institutions.
Many of the colleges have used the endowment interest in
conjunction with the 1994 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 top priorities. Several of the
colleges have indicated the need for immediate new construction and
extensive renovations to replace buildings that have long exceeded
their effective life spans and to upgrade existing facilities to
address accessibility, modernization, and safety concerns.
Endowment payments appropriated increase the size of the corpus
held by the U.S. Treasury and thereby increase the base on which the
annual interest yield is determined for distribution to the 1994
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. In order for
the 1994 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
wellbeing of our reservation communities. We respectfully request the
subcommittee fund the fiscal year 2011 endowment payment at $12 million
and strongly urge the subcommittee to review the USDA-NIFA
administrative fee and consider directing the department to reduce said
fee for the Tribal College Endowment program so that more of these
already limited funds can be utilized by the 1994 Institutions to
conduct essential community-based programs.
Tribal Colleges and Universities Essential Community Facilities
Program (Rural Development).--The President's fiscal year 2011 budget
request recommends eliminating the TCU Essential Community Facilities
grant program. The reason stated for this drastic move is an ill-
considered one. The administration has stated that the TCUs' grant
program should be eliminated because TCUs can participate in other
programs offered in the Community Facilities Loan and Grant Programs
(CFLGP). However, history indicates otherwise. Before the TCU-specific
grant funding was made available, only 3 of the 32 TCU 1994
Institutions received awards under CFLGP. That constitutes successful
participation by less than 10 percent of the eligible TCUs. By
contrast, in fiscal year 2001 when the TCU-specific program launched,
22 TCU Land Grant Institutions, or almost 70 percent of the 1994
Institutions received grant awards. We strongly urge the subcommittee
to reject the proposal to eliminate this critical program and to
designate $5 million each year for the next 5 fiscal years to afford
the 1994 Institutions the means to aggressively address critical
facilities and infrastructure needs, thereby allowing them to better
serve their students and their respective communities.
conclusion
The 1994 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 underserved regions. The modest Federal investment in the 1994
Institutions has already paid great dividends in terms of increased
employment, access to higher 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 Institutions.
We appreciate your support of the 1994 Institutions and recognition
of their role in the Nation's land grant system. 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 great 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 2011 appropriations
recommendations.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH)
overview
Recognizing its shared commitment to developing a science-literate
workforce, ensuring the safety of the Nation's agriculture and food
supply, improving nutrition and health, and protecting the Nation's
natural resources and environment, the American Museum of Natural
History seeks $1.5 million in fiscal year 2011 to partner with the USDA
in a multifaceted initiative focused on food, nutrition, and the
critical issues underlying our Nation's food supply.
about the american museum of natural history
Since its founding in 1869, the American Museum of Natural History
(AMNH) has pursued its joint mission of scientific investigation and
public education. More than 200 Museum scientists conduct
groundbreaking research in fields as diverse as systematic and
conservation biology, astrophysics, and Earth and biodiversity
sciences, and AMNH's collections of some 32 million specimens and
cultural artifacts provide an irreplaceable record of life on Earth.
The work of the Museum's scientific staff fuels exhibitions and
educational programming, the goal of which is to communicate to a broad
public of varying ages and backgrounds about basic scientific concepts,
scientific research, and new discoveries.
Each year, the Museum welcomes and engages some 4 million on-site
visitors--more than half of them children--with exhibitions and
programs that are grounded in current scientific research. In addition,
the Museum reaches beyond its walls to communities across the country
and around the world, through extensive touring of its award-winning
exhibitions and space shows, broad-ranging online initiatives, and
publishing ventures. Because of the scale and scope of this audience,
the Museum is uniquely positioned to have a significant impact on
millions of children, families, teachers, adults, and students from
preschool to graduate school.
AMNH has a particularly successful history of translating current
research for public audiences of all ages through its internationally
renowned exhibitions. Most recently, the Museum's environmental
science-based exhibits Water: H2O=Life and Climate Change:
The Threat to Life and a New Energy Future helped illuminate these
critical issues for millions, making important scientific research
relevant to the daily lives of our audiences.
initiative to advancing public understanding of food
Drawing on these unique strengths, AMNH seeks to collaborate with
the USDA on an initiative that will both research and educate the
public about food, nutrition, and the Nation's food supply. Through the
proposed initiative, AMNH would develop an exhibition supported by
associated educational and research programs:
--Food Exhibition.--The production, consumption, and nutrition of
food in the United States today is perhaps more complex than
ever before, but despite its national importance there is
currently no major educational exhibition on the subject.
AMNH's Food exhibition would address these issues relevant to
U.S. concerns, answering such questions as: ``What is the role
of food in health?''; ``What is the environmental impact of the
food we eat?''; and ``How will we feed a growing population?''.
The exhibit would address several topics key to scientific
literacy, potentially including the biology behind the food we
eat, the process of agriculture, the role of food in overall
nutrition, the manufacturing and safety of food, and the impact
on the environment. An engaging mix of hands-on elements,
interactive media installations, live demonstrations, and food
tastings would immerse visitors in the core educational topics
of the exhibit. Through AMNH's traveling program, the
exhibition would reach millions in New York, across the
country, and abroad.
--Educational Programs and Resources.--AMNH proposes to develop a
suite of educational resources associated with the topic of
food and nutrition, including professional development programs
for teachers and multimedia presentations for its Science
Bulletins program, which presents current science news to
Museum and online audiences at AMNH and other venues. Through
documentary feature stories about scientists in the field and
regular brief research updates using scientific visualizations
and imagery, Science Bulletins present the latest developments
in the fields of astrophysics, Earth science, biodiversity,
human biology, and evolution. All Science Bulletins content is
produced through the collaboration of in-house scientists,
writers, producers, and designers, and through partnerships
with other institutions worldwide.
--Research.--Museum scientists carry out cutting-edge research in
areas such as environmental and systematic biology,
conservation and biodiversity, and comparative genomics. Their
research will serve as the springboard for all programs,
resources, and activities developed.
Requested funding, which the Museum will leverage with support from
non-Federal as well as other Federal sources, will be used for
exhibition development and production, traveling exhibition
implementation, associated online educational resources, multimedia
presentations on food and nutrition, and related environmental and
biodiversity research. In addition to the creation of these resources
and the expansion of the public's understanding of these issues, it is
anticipated that this project will support 3 full-time and 30 part-time
positions.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association (APPA)
The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal
and other State and locally owned utilities in 49 States (all but
Hawaii). Public power utilities deliver electricity to one of every
seven electricity consumers (approximately 45 million people), serving
some of the Nation's largest cities. However, the vast majority of
APPA's members serve communities with populations of 10,000 people or
less.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining
our fiscal year 2011 funding priorities within the jurisdiction of the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies Subcommittee.
department of agriculture: rural utility service rural broadband grants
and loans
APPA supports the Administration's efforts to provide funding in
the amount of $418 million for the Rural Utilities Service Rural
Broadband Grants and Loans. APPA believes it is important to provide
incentives for the deployment of broadband to rural communities, many
of which lack broadband service. Increasingly, access to advanced
communications services is considered vital to a community's economic
and educational development. In addition, the availability of broadband
service enables rural communities to provide advanced healthcare
through telemedicine and to promote regional competitiveness and other
benefits that contribute to a high quality of life. Approximately one-
fourth of APPA's members are currently providing broadband service in
their communities. In addition, several APPA members are planning to
apply for RUS broadband loans to help them finance their future
broadband projects.
department of agriculture: title ix programs
APPA supports full funding of programs authorized in title IX of
the 2008 Farm Bill for energy efficiency, renewable energy and
biofuels. APPA is extremely pleased that the President's budget
provides an additional $39.3 million in addition to the $70 million in
discretionary funding for the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP).
In addition, we request the full authorized level of $5 million for the
Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency program, and $5 million for the Community
Wood Energy Program for fiscal year 2011.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Sheep Industry Association (ASI)
The American Sheep Industry Association (ASI) is a federation of
State-member associations representing 82,000 sheep producers in the
United States. The sheep industry views numerous agencies and programs
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 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. The industry and the benefits to rural communities will be
strengthened by fully funding critical predator control activities and
national animal health efforts and by expanding research opportunities.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the USDA fiscal year
2011 budget.
animal and plant health inspection service (aphis)
Scrapie
ASI believes that the Administration's request of $18,043,000 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 $10.64 million beyond the
Administration's request for a total of $28.687 million in fiscal year
2011.
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 10 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
according to the APHIS plan. Becoming scrapie-free will have a
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 10 years of the eradication program with a cost peak of
$31,974,354 in the fifth year and projected funding decreasing
afterwards. At the end of 2009, $145,996,000 (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 2011, 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 operations
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.
WS 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. WS has more than
2,000 cooperative agreements with agriculture, forestry groups, private
industry, State game and fish departments, departments of health,
schools and county and local governments to mitigate the damage and
danger that the public's wildlife can inflict on private property and
public health and safety.
ASI strongly disagrees with the Administration's proposed reduction
of nearly $7 million in WS operations from the $77,780,000 enacted for
2010 to the proposed $71,000,000 and urge the subcommittee to fund WS
operations at least at the 2010 level of $77,780,000. 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 Federal sources.
We urge the subcommittee to increase funding at the livestock
industry's request for the western region of Wildlife Services
operations of livestock protection to $19 million and the eastern
region to $3.6 million.
The western region requires an additional $8.3 million to meet the
$19 million federally sourced level of the livestock protection
program. Federal funding available for livestock predation management
to 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. The Federal base funding for
WS western region 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 needs of the 11 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 WS
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 of the importance of aerial hunting as one of WS
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 WS rabies control program.
Similar to the increasing needs in the aerial hunting program, we
encourage continued emphasis in the programs to assist with management
of wolf depredation in the States of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico and Arizona. Additionally,
program expenses are expected to increase in the States surrounding the
Montana, Idaho and Wyoming wolf populations.
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 an area or period and another tool must be employed.
The Administration's proposed reduction from $18,630,000 to $16,064,000
is not supported by the cooperators of the program.
The USDA, APHIS, WS, 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 morbidity. 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 2011 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 FAS 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 and other livestock and range
management organizations have worked jointly with 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 (ARS)
Infectious Diseases and the Domestic-Wildlife Interface project is
a top priority to address as it is one of the most pressing issues
facing the U.S. sheep industry. ASI strongly endorses a request for
appropriations to fund this project as do the numerous State sheep
producer associations and the Wild Sheep Foundation. This vital
research will help resolve one of the more important issues of the
western sheep industry.
The research funding is targeted toward the development of methods
to control infectious diseases at the domestic-wildlife interface with
specific focus on bighorn sheep health and species compatibility. These
funds are to be directed to ARS's Animal Disease Research Unit that is
co-located with the University of Idaho and Washington State
University. The funds are to be used in collaborative research efforts
with those institutions, the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois,
Idaho, and in collaboration with other agencies as appropriate.
The request will provide for acquisition of genetic and disease
transmission details leading to the development of vaccines, which are
critical for the continued grazing of sheep on public lands and healthy
bighorn herds. $900,000 is requested for fiscal year 2011 to be
directed to the Animal Disease Research Unit, ARS-USDA, co-located at
the University of Idaho and Washington State University to develop
methods to control infectious diseases at the domestic animal interface
with specific focus on bighorn sheep health and species compatibility.
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. 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.
A virtual map of the sheep genome has been completed. 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. A much needed
AFRI grant was awarded in 2009 for the purpose of further sequencing
the sheep genome. We urge the subcommittee to remind USDA/ARS that
sheep genome sequencing should be a high priority within its program to
help assure the completion of the effort in a timely manner.
Due to the extreme importance of agricultural genomics in enhancing
the global competitiveness of sheep production and the recent progress
toward fully sequencing the sheep genome, we respectively request that
this initiative be expanded within ARS 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 the 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 to the 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.
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.
In response to USDA's strategic goals of expanding opportunities
for bio-energy and bio-based products, we request that the subcommittee
recommend $400,000 as a targeted increase for the USDA/ARS 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.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
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. The mission of the Minor Use Animal Drug Program/NRSP-7 is
to identify animal drug needs for minor species and minor uses in major
species, to generate and disseminate data for safe and effective
therapeutic applications and to facilitate FDA approval for drugs
identified as a priority for a minor species or minor use. The program
is funded through a USDA Special Research Grant administered by NIFA.
The program also receives in-kind support from several sources
including the institutions conducting the research (e.g., State
Agriculture Experiment Stations), animal producer groups through
contributions of animals for research, and pharmaceutical companies.
Without this program, American sheep producers would not have effective
products to keep their sheep healthy. We urge the subcommittee to fund
the NRSP-7 program at the level of $1 million for 2011.
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 least at the level of $1.5 million in
2011 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.
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 LMIC
represent 26 Land Grant Universities, six 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-
1950s. 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 urge that funding should be
reinstated under NIFA at least at the 2006 level of $194,000 for LMIC
in fiscal year 2011.
Food and Drug Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine
The Minor Use and Minor Species (MUMS) 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 urges Congress' support for $1
million for the MUMS grants program.
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 17,733,000
2010.................................... 26,994,991 17,906,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not count rescissions.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM)
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), which includes 40,000
members, is pleased to submit the following testimony on the fiscal
year 2011 appropriation for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The
ASM recommends $2.857 billion for the FDA in fiscal year 2011, a $495
million increase above the Agency's fiscal year 2010 funding. The ASM
is pleased to see that the Administration's proposed fiscal year 2011
FDA budget of $2.5 billion represents an increase of about 6 percent
over fiscal year 2010. This is noteworthy at a time when most funding
for Federal programs is being frozen or cut. We also appreciate that
after years of chronic underfunding, the FDA budget has recently begun
to recover. However, given the FDA's substantial role in protecting the
American consumer, the ASM urges Congress to consider increasing the
FDA's budget above that requested by the President to a level of $2.857
billion.
The FDA's expansive mission is to assure the safety, efficacy and
security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical
devices, the Nation's food supply, cosmetics and products that emit
radiation; to facilitate innovation in food safety and affordable
medicine; and to provide the public with science based information to
help Americans make wise choices and safeguard public health. Because
of its oversight of drugs, biologics, foods and laboratory tests, FDA
plays a critical role in the development and dissemination of medical
countermeasures for biological, chemical and radiologic attacks.
Despite some recent improvements, serious deficiencies in FDA
resources persist. These problems have been highlighted by several
critical external reviews in recent years most prominently its own
Science Board Report released in 2007, FDA Science and Mission at Risk.
Products regulated by the FDA arrive from more than 150 countries, with
nearly 20 million shipments of food, devices, drugs and cosmetics
expected this year (compared to about 6 million 10 years ago). Faced
with a flood of consumer goods, the FDA's import inspectors (fewer than
500) typically examine only 1 percent of shipments at U.S. ports of
entry. The FDA's own science expertise has failed to keep up with
innovations in product research and development. Outmoded computing
also complicates oversight by the FDA. Informed by expert advice, the
FDA is currently attempting to transform food safety, better protect
patients from unsafe products and revitalize its own scientific
enterprise. Important steps have been taken to upgrade information
technology and management at the FDA. However, without more substantial
increases in funding, the Agency will barely keep up much less
strengthen the scientific infrastructure that is so badly needed. In
the fiscal year 2011 budget, the ASM believes that two areas need
particular attention: one is to assure sufficient resources to continue
efforts to transform Agency approaches to food safety and the second is
to enable FDA to implement new mechanisms to enhance scientific
expertise and capacity in key areas.
transforming food safety
The FDA needs additional resources to overhaul and modernize its
food safety efforts. Regulation of the U.S. food supply is a monumental
challenge for the FDA foods program, which has responsibility for $417
billion worth of domestic food, $49 billion worth of imported food, and
$62 billion worth of cosmetics per year. As a result, the FDA oversees
about 156,000 registered U.S. food establishments, 230,700 registered
foreign facilities, and more than 3,500 cosmetic firms. The ASM
appreciates efforts made last year by the Congress and the
Administration to improve the safety and security of the Nation's food
supply. The President's new Food Safety Working Group reaffirmed
previous external reviews of FDA regulatory activities that supported
upgrading food safety through a greater focus on prevention as a
priority, better surveillance and enforcement capabilities, and
improved response to identified threats.
Advances in food safety require funding levels that can sustain
long term efforts, such as the Agency's wide-ranging fight against
Salmonella species that are responsible for more than a million
illnesses each year and the leading cause of foodborne illness in the
United States. Salmonella enteritidis (SE) accounts for about 17
percent of all salmonellosis in humans, with shell eggs and broiler
chickens the most common sources. One high priority FDA goal is to
decrease, by the end of 2011, the annual number of illnesses and
outbreaks linked to SE in this country by 10 percent. In July 2009, the
FDA published its final rule on preventing SE in shell eggs, affecting
production on farms, storage and transportation and requiring producers
to maintain compliance records. The FDA expects the new regulation to
prevent 79,000 cases of SE associated foodborne illness and 30 deaths
each year, with eventual annual savings in medical costs estimated to
be $1.4 billion or more.
The FDA also continues to strengthen its collaborations with other
government agencies, academic and industry entities and professional
organizations, toward enhancing its own performance. Last year, the
Agency opened its Reportable Food Registry electronic portal, where
food manufacturers are required to alert the FDA within 24 hours if
they suspect a health threat is linked to their products. In the case
of food product tracing, the Agency announced in November its
partnership with the USDA to expedite improvements in tracing specific
foods throughout the supply chain, and solicited public input. A week
later, CFSAN released a report on food product tracing that it had
commissioned from the Institute of Food Technologists to help redesign
its food surveillance. In fiscal year 2009, the FDA awarded 83 grants
worth $17.5 million to State and local groups to build food safety
initiatives; for example, three States received funding for Food
Protection Rapid Response Teams especially trained to respond to food
hazard incidents. Grants support FDA's ongoing strategy to integrate
food safety among Federal, State, and local partners. This program
needs to be expanded to additional States as quickly as possible.
building fda science & technology
The FDA's capacity in regulatory science, which underlies all
Agency activities, has been under great scrutiny since the FDA Science
Board's highly critical 2007 review of FDA science and technology.
There is an indisputable need for leading edge science and technology
capabilities within the FDA to provide the careful review of today's
innovative medical products and burgeoning food supply that the public
expects and demands. Last year, the FDA approved the first DNA test for
two specific human papillomaviruses, while other FDA researchers showed
that a nanotechnology based test could detect anthrax bacteria in
quantities 100 times lower than current tests. Both diagnostics rely on
emerging technologies that certainly must be within a flexible FDA
portfolio of scientific expertise.
The ASM applauds the Administration's $25 million budget request
for advancing regulatory science, the first time that fiscal support
has been explicitly designated for building FDA science. Solid science
must be the basis for the numerous FDA rules and guidelines promulgated
to industry here and abroad. The request includes funding for
nanotechnology safety review, a stem cell initiative, and multi-faceted
support for FDA's Critical Path Initiative and its new Office of
Science and Innovation. However, the ASM believes more needs to be done
in this area.
The FDA Science Board review of Science and Technology at FDA (FDA
Science and Mission at Risk, 2007) found that the FDA mission was at
risk for the following key reasons:
--The FDA scientific base has eroded and its scientific
organizational structure is weak at a time when there have been
major scientific advances and when new products and
technologies under the regulatory authority are more
scientifically complex.
--The FDA scientific workforce does not have sufficient capacity and
capability.
--The FDA information technology (IT) infrastructure to support the
scientific base is inadequate.
Food safety, just one mission area for the FDA, is an important
case study demonstrating the urgent need to build regulatory science at
the FDA. Food safety today is largely based on 1970-1980s science and
1950s regulation approaches. It is critical that policy, science and
public health experts collaborate to identify where the science and
practice of regulation is significantly limited for food safety and
then develop and implement a strategic road map to mitigate these
deficiencies. In some cases that will require the development and
support for new technologies that have little to no commercial or
academic value so they remain ``orphan technologies'' and in other
cases it will require translating new science (industry, academic or
government supported) into more effective regulations and then provide
training for how to apply and enforce these new regulations.
The 2007 Science Board report recognized that the FDA is confronted
by many such regulatory challenges and recommended the development of a
FDA Centers of Excellence network to strengthen the science capability
of the FDA and to discover solutions for complex problems such as food
safety. At the time of its release the ASM strongly endorsed the
recommendations of the Science Board report and believes that
establishment of Academic Centers of Excellence in Regulatory Science
will rapidly and efficiently build FDA science capability and capacity
through three types of activities: research and innovation, regulatory
services and education. All the activities of the Centers of Excellence
would be grounded in a well developed and disciplined applied research
agenda in regulatory and information sciences.
Regulatory and information sciences are the foundation of the FDA's
mission. Regulatory science is a broad term concerning drug, food and
other product regulations, regulatory standards, law and procedures
across many disciplines. It is a systemized body of knowledge
(practiced by FDA and similar regulatory agencies worldwide) comprising
public protection oriented medical product regulations, policy and
decisions using scientific methods employing empirical and causal
evidence utilized in the evaluation and approval of all the products
that FDA regulates. The activities for which FDA needs such expertise
are wide-ranging: the review and assessment of laboratory data; animal
and human clinical data; methods development; facilities inspection;
and development of technical and scientific standards for preclinical
assessment, product development, postmarket surveillance,
manufacturing, packaging standards, food safety standards and food
processing technologies. FDA must have the scientific expertise,
resources and collaborations to ensure that the regulatory scientific
research priorities are addressed and that services will be delivered
that provide a basis to: (1) Improve capacity for safety and efficacy
evaluations and monitoring of candidate and licensed products, (2)
Modernize current regulatory pathways, and (3) Develop new regulatory
pathways where there are currently none.
The lack of new science capability or capacity places the FDA's
mission at risk, and may actually stall progress in development of
products at the leading edge of innovation. This compromises not only
the public health mission since the Agency cannot effectively regulate
products built on emerging science, but it also compromises the
Agency's ability to support innovation in the industries and markets
that it regulates. These logistical, technical and budgetary
limitations will continue to constrain, rather than enable, the
innovation on which advances in healthcare delivery and public safety
depend.
The recognition that the FDA is a science based and ultimately
science dependent organization is the basis for the 2007 Science Board
report recommendation for the creation of a Center of Excellence in
Regulatory Science within the Agency and an external network of Centers
of Excellence in regulatory and information science. A network of
Centers of Excellence based in research intensive institutions could
deliver the scientific and informatics expertise that will result in
the tools, methods and information that the FDA requires to fulfill its
mission. The network will provide opportunity for the FDA to harness
the substantial potential of the academic sector where many of the
innovations and early applications of emerging technologies are likely
to occur. Each center might bring to the FDA a particular incremental
expertise. For example, centers might add critical mass to the FDA
mission by providing expertise in novel approaches to trial design; to
the development of novel informatics tools or to various aspects of
translational therapeutics wherein preclinical and clinical information
studies are designed and integrated to enhance prediction of efficacy
and safety of novel therapeutics. In addition to providing critically
important access to safety data, patients, health outcomes, enabling
technologies and process or technical expertise, the centers will
enable targeting limited resources to the research priorities that are
most relevant to the health and public safety challenges faced by the
FDA. Importantly, these will allow the Agency to address important
safety issues and opportunities for disease intervention in a proactive
rather than a reactive manner.
Our best estimate for the cost of the Centers of Excellence network
is $650 million over 5 years, or $150 million per year. As a first
step, the Administration and Congress should consider implementing the
internal FDA Center ($70 million in fiscal year 2011) and establishing
at least four of the external Centers ($40 million or $10 million per
center in fiscal year 2011). The ASM encourages Congress and the
Administration to begin the establishment of the Centers of Excellence
network in fiscal year 2011.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the FDA budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM)
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit
the following testimony on the fiscal year 2011 appropriation for the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) science programs. The ASM is the
largest single life science organization in the world with more than
40,000 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.
USDA supported scientific research strengthens food safety, water
quality, agriculture production, clean energy, and animal and public
health. The ASM endorses the Administration's proposed fiscal year 2011
funding for the USDA's science and food safety programs, including $1.5
billion for the National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA), and
about $1 billion for the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). The
ASM strongly endorses the proposed $429 million for the USDA's recently
created NIFA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) as an
important step, but encourages Congress to fund AFRI at its fully
authorized level of $700 million.
Agriculture in the United States produces $300 billion worth of
products each year. USDA employees including, scientists, inspectors,
educators, and regulatory experts, deliver public services through more
than 300 programs here and abroad. Increased funding will strengthen
programs focused on threats to the U.S. food supply, as well as climate
change and other environmental challenges facing our agribusiness
sectors. Funding also will sustain the USDA support for basic and
applied research at the Nation's universities and land grant
institutions.
The recently established, National Institute of Food and
Agriculture, funds research, education, and extension activities that
advance knowledge critical to U.S. public health and our national
economy. The USDA also formulated new food safety rules in
collaboration with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These
science based actions align with the Agency's fiscal year 2011 strategy
to focus USDA research on high impact solutions like radically improved
food safety and innovations in biofuels and climate stress resistant
crops. The ASM urges the Congress to recognize the importance of USDA
science with strong fiscal year 2011 funding levels.
improving food safety and security
The USDA is responsible for ensuring that our meat, poultry, and
processed egg products are safe, wholesome and properly labeled. These
products, from both domestic and foreign sources, account for roughly
20 percent of the U.S. food supply. There are innumerable possibilities
for contamination within the massive system that feeds Americans, who
spend nearly $1.2 trillion on food annually. Disease outbreaks from
foodborne microbial pathogens persist as sporadic public health crises,
and about 76 million new cases of food related illness are reported
each year, with likely many more unreported. A new report estimates the
total economic impact of U.S. foodborne illness to be a combined $152
billion annually.
In 2007, and again in 2009, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) listed ``revamping Federal oversight of food safety'' among its
high risk areas demanding immediate Federal attention and resources.
Last September, another GAO report called for the FDA and USDA to close
gaps in their collaborative oversight of imported foods. In 2009, the
new Food Safety Working Group (FSWG) co-chaired by the Secretaries of
the USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services recommended
actions that will shape how USDA science affects future food safety
standards. The proposed fiscal year 2011 USDA budget would specifically
address several key FSWG findings, including the development of better,
high tech tools to reduce the prevalence of pathogens, as well as risk
based methods for targeting inspections of USDA regulated products.
the national institute of food and agriculture (nifa)
The ASM supports the Administration's proposed $1.5 billion for the
USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture. In 2009, the newly
created NIFA replaced the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Services (CSREES) program as the USDA's extramural research
enterprise. Its principal responsibility is linking together a diverse
nationwide collection of Federal, State, and higher education entities
involved in agriculture related research. Like its predecessor, NIFA
supports new scientific discoveries and provides Federal leadership in
key areas including food safety, climate change, clean energy and
public education.
The NIFA's mission is to fund projects at the State and local level
through 60 target driven programs, which have been grouped by the USDA
into a dozen national emphasis areas: agricultural systems; animals;
biotechnology and genomics; economics and community development;
education; environment and natural resources; food, nutrition and
health; international; pest management; plants; technology and
engineering; and families, youth and communities.
agriculture and food research initiative (afri)
The ASM strongly supports the Administration's proposed budget for
AFRI of $429 million, an increase of $166 million from fiscal year
2010. AFRI, the Nation's leading funding source for basic and applied
sciences in agriculture, was created by the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 as a competitive grants program for research,
extension, and education activities. The ASM supports the end goal of
funding AFRI to its fully authorized level of $700 million annually and
stresses that a fiscal year 2011 budget of $429 million is only a
crucial first step.
Funding for AFRI will support critical USDA initiatives on
biofuels, global climate change, international food security, food
safety, and nutrition.
Through competitive, peer reviewed grants, AFRI promotes creative
solutions across disciplines throughout the United States. Grants
awarded in 2010 will be larger in size and longer in duration than
previous CSREES awards, matching resources with the magnitude of
challenges currently faced by agriculture.
USDA supported discoveries have significant health and economic
impact. In 2009, researchers reported a protein in Clostridium bacteria
that protects spores of the foodborne pathogen from heat and sodium
nitrite, imparting resistance to common food hygiene techniques. C.
perfringens is the second most common bacterial cause of foodborne
illness in the United States, affecting as many as 250,000 people each
year. A new poultry vaccine against Campylobacter bacteria, using
genetically engineered Salmonella to induce antibodies in chicks, is
under development. Campylobacter is the most common bacterial cause of
U.S. foodborne illness, infecting an estimated 2.4 million people
annually. Contaminated poultry is a significant reservoir for human
infection and, more importantly, infection by drug resistant strains of
Campylobacter.
Multi-year AFRI grants awarded in 2009 include projects to (1)
sequence the genomes of Chlamydiaceae bacterial species that cause
severe livestock diseases and significant annual economic losses, to
inform drug and vaccine development; (2) determine the fate of
antibiotic containing poultry litter applied to pastures as fertilizer,
testing antibiotic levels in surface waters affected by runoff; and (3)
develop a new soil-phosphorus index based on molecular biological and
biochemical assays of soil microorganisms. Current AFRI funding
opportunities for fiscal year 2011 include projects in carbon cycle
science and in risk assessment of biotechnology generated agricultural
products.
agriculture research service (ars)
Since fiscal year 2009, the ARS budget has decreased by more than a
staggering thirteen percent. This disturbing trend is continued with
the Administration's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget for the ARS of
$1.22 billion, a further 4 percent reduction from fiscal year 2010. ASM
strongly urges Congress to fund the ARS with at least $1.4 billion in
fiscal year 2011 to begin to regain the critical research capabilities
lost with previous reductions.
The ARS is the Department's principal in house research component,
with an 8,000 member workforce that includes 2,100 scientists from
diverse disciplines. It maintains about 1,200 research projects at more
than 100 U.S. locations and four overseas laboratories. Its national
research programs include food safety, global climate change,
bioenergy, and food animal production, among others. To strengthen its
own research efforts, ARS has a long history of partnering with
commercial firms to transfer ARS technologies to the marketplace.
The ARS portfolio also utilizes international research partnerships
to address global issues. Food safety and food security, for example,
must be dealt with far beyond the United States, which imports 15-20
percent of its food supply and is vulnerable to migrating pathogens.
Current collaborations include an Argentina study of immune responses
to the virus that causes foot and mouth disease in cattle, to identify
the genetic basis of why some animals are more resistant to disease;
and the creation of a virtual Joint U.S.-Sino Food Safety Research
Center with Shanghai Jiao Tong University, to promote training and
research programs in China and the cooperative development of new
analysis methods like biomarker screening for Salmonella and other
foodborne pathogens.
food safety and inspection service (fsis)
The ASM endorses the Administration's fiscal year 2011 budget for
USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service of $1.05 billion. Sufficient
funding for the FSIS is crucial to successful oversight of the Nation's
food supply.
The FSIS provides the USDA regulatory force to ensure the safety of
domestic and imported meat, poultry and egg products (liquid, frozen,
and dried). It employs about 9,250 full-time staff, including more than
8,500 deployed in the field. FSIS personnel inspect more than 6,280
federally regulated meat, poultry, and egg product plants in 50 States,
Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In fiscal year 2009,
those facilities processed 150 million head of livestock and nine
billion poultry carcasses.
The FSIS science-based inspection system, the Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point (HACCP) system, emphasizes prevention and
control of foodborne threats to public health. FSIS inspectors verify
that individual food producers and processors meet HACCP requirements,
determined by routine sampling of products for pathogens like
Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes. In fiscal year 2009, FSIS
personnel condemned more than 527 million pounds of poultry and 227,000
head of livestock during pre and post slaughter inspections. That year,
more than 3.4 billion pounds of meat and poultry were presented to FSIS
for import from 20 eligible countries, with 6.6 million pounds refused
entry or rejected post inspection. Also in fiscal year 2009, there were
71 recalls of FSIS regulated commercial products, totaling 9.5 million
pounds; and 27 recalls were linked to contamination by Listeria and E.
coli bacteria.
education and collaboration
The USDA is the lead Federal agency for higher education in the
food and agriculture sciences; in particular, NIFA's Office of Higher
Education Programs links teaching, research and extension activities.
Its mission includes the training of food and agriculture scientists
and other professionals. Ten percent of the AFRI budget is marked for
USDA Strengthening Awards and postdoctoral fellowships. The proposed
fiscal year 2011 budget allocates up to $5 million for pre- and
postdoctoral grants, designed to create ``a cadre of NIFA Fellows'' as
agriculture's next generation of scientists, educators, and
practitioners. Many of the AFRI funded programs require that education
and outreach activities be integrated with research components.
Fiscal support for USDA science yields benefits that reach far
beyond the Agency's immediate responsibilities. The Agency routinely
establishes collaborations with other Federal agencies, State agencies,
land grant universities, non profit organizations, professional
societies, commodity groups and grower associations, private industry,
the military, various foreign government and academic entities, and
other groups. For example, FSIS participates in the Foodborne Diseases
Active Surveillance Network with the FDA and Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), and, with the FDA, is responsible for the
Healthy People 2010 food safety objectives. In October, USDA agreed to
help FDA personnel develop new safety rules for fresh produce. Last
year, the FDA and the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
created an online tool to help farmers and producers identify and fix
vulnerabilities in their production processes. FSIS will partner with
other government agencies to provide on-site expertise at the new
Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center for Import Safety, recently
opened in Washington, DC, by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
agency.
The proposed fiscal year 2011 USDA budget will support much needed
improvements in the Agency's ability to carry out its regulatory duties
more efficiently and more quickly. Computing capabilities will be
upgraded and expanded within key program areas like FSIS. The USDA
expects to begin phased in implementation of its Public Health
Information System (PHIS) in October, automating food safety
verification and sampling procedures by FSIS personnel. PHIS will link
in real time with the CDC's PulseNet human outbreak system, addressing
in part the GAO's criticism of interagency gaps in Federal food
oversight.
conclusion
The ASM urges Congress to increase research and education funding
in the USDA budget, and provide at least $1.5 billion for NIFA, at
least $429 million for AFRI, at least $1.4 billion for ARS, and $1
billion for FSIS.
Research in the agricultural and biological sciences is imperative
to combat current and future threats to human, environmental, plant and
animal health. The research supported by the USDA should be a priority
that deserves steady, predictable and sustainable funding; the future
of our agricultural systems, a basis for human health, relies on it.
The ASM appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony
and would be pleased to assist the subcommittee as it considers the
fiscal year 2011 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 2011
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 $108 million in fiscal
year 2011 for the Human Nutrition Research program at the Agricultural
Research Service. We request $500 million for the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative in fiscal year 2011, which is housed under the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).
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
healthcare 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 over the past two decades has
neither kept pace with inflation, nor the growing complexity of our
food supply and public health needs. 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 understand better 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 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
ASN's recommendation of $108 million for the Human Nutrition
Research program at ARS is based on three major components: a requested
increase by the President for specific projects, funding needs related
to national nutrition monitoring, and stabilizing, in a graded fashion,
funding for the six Human Nutrition Research Centers (HNRCs).
the president's request
ASN strongly supports the President's budget request of an
additional $6.75 million for the Human Nutrition Program under ARS.
These dollars would be aimed at: supporting key research projects such
as one studying whether and how American diets adhere to the Dietary
Guidelines; bolstering the nutrition monitoring program, What We Eat in
American (WWEIA); and, funding critical updates to www.nutrition.gov,
which is maintained by the National Agricultural Library.
what we eat in america survey
In addition to supporting the specific request made in the
President's budget, ASN urges Congress to consider additional needs
such as those of the What We Eat in America Survey (WWEIA). WWEIA is
another example of the unique nutrition research at ARS. This program
allows us to know not only what foods Americans are eating, but also
how their diets directly affect their health. This survey is a partner
to the National Health and Nutrition Examination and Survey (NHANES)
that is run by the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.
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 for nutrition assistance programs, the
survey data leverages billions of private sector dollars allocated to
nutrition labeling, food product development and production. For
example, data collected through WWEIA provided critical information to
the Institute of Medicine expert panel reviewing the WIC food package a
few years ago. The panel's recommendations to USDA, based on these
data, guided a revision of the food package. The changes have now been
implemented and are having a positive influence on the nutritional
intake of WIC participants.
Despite its enormous value and importance, WWEIA has been flat-
funded at $11.5 million for over 14 years and is in jeopardy. While we
are grateful that the President proposed $900,000 for the survey, it
does not go far enough. The USDA budget for WWEIA should be increased
two-fold to $23 million to make up for losses to inflation over the
years and to ensure this program can remain a state-of-the-art, 21st
century data collection effort. Otherwise, we risk losing this national
treasure and the essential information it provides.
setting the stage for a successful future
USDA has built a program of human nutrition research housed in six
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. More than a decade of flat
funding at ARS for this program 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. 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. Moreover, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to supporting the specific request made in the
President's budget and additional support for WWEIA, ASN urges Congress
to consider a renewed commitment to the Human Nutrition Research
Centers program over the next 5 years that would lead to a doubling of
its current budget to $180 million by fiscal year 2015.
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 interdisciplinary
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.
Flat-funding coupled with inflation has led to considerable funding
deficits that threaten to compromise the Centers' abilities to continue
their work at the level necessary to solve the significant nutrition
problems facing our country. For example, the ARS HNRC located at Tufts
University in Boston, MA has been flat-funded at $15 million since
2004. The Center today would need over $19 million in funding just to
keep up with the costs of inflation over the past 6 years--a 28 percent
increase. The other five centers have had similar flat-funding during
this time period.
Beginning next year in fiscal year 2012, the provision of
approximately $18 million in additional funds each year would result in
a budget by fiscal year 2015 that is double that of today. By making
this stepwise commitment to the Human Nutrition Research program,
Congress would ensure that it, through the six HNRCs, can continue
current research projects, plan for the future and restore purchasing
power lost to inflation over a decade of flat budgets.
agriculture and food research initiative competitive grants program
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 established the
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), a new competitive
grants program authorized at $700 million annually, for research,
extension, and education in support of our Nation's food and
agricultural systems within the newly established National Institute of
Food and Agriculture (NIFA) at USDA. This unique program, the successor
to USDA's National Research Initiative (NRI) and the Initiative for
Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS), takes research and
innovation beyond the development phase, into implementation through
contemporary education and extension programs.
ASN is pleased that the NIFA has identified human nutrition and
specifically, childhood obesity, as a top priority. AFRI includes
programs aimed to improve the Nation's nutrition and health which focus
on two objectives: (1) improving human health by better understanding
an individual's nutrient requirements and the nutritional value of
foods; and (2) promoting research on healthier food choices and
lifestyles. For example, USDA-funded projects funded by the Human
Nutrition and Obesity program have led to a better understanding of the
behavioral and environmental factors that influence obesity, and to the
development and evaluation of effective interventions. Specifically,
USDA competitive grants have funded nutrition education interventions
focusing on the reduction of childhood obesity in low-income families.
ASN believes the program should be funded at its full authorization
level of $700 million, but we understand that in the current fiscal
climate, that is unlikely. However, with the Nation and world facing
unprecedented health, food security and nutrition challenges, now is
the time to renew investment in our Nation's agricultural research
enterprise. We applaud the President's strong request of $429 million
for the program with an additional $50 million for nutrition and
obesity research, but urge Congress to take this a step further and
fund AFRI at $500 million in fiscal year 2011. Such funding will not
only position the program to achieve its full funding as we approach
the next Farm Bill, but it will provide America's agriculture, food and
nutrition scientists, land managers and farmers with the tools
necessary to solve problems and keep the country competitive, while
also protecting the natural resource base and environment, enhancing
human nutrition and fostering vibrant rural communities.
The AFRI and the Human Nutrition Research Program under ARS are
synergistic programs equally important to the nutrition field, because
together they provide both the infrastructure and the investigator-
initiated, peer-reviewed research that generates new knowledge and
allows 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 AFRI
Competitive Grants Program.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB)
On behalf of the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB) we
submit this statement for the official record in support of increased
funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National
Institute of Food and Agriculture in fiscal year 2011, specifically
funding the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative at the requested
level of $429 million. This testimony highlights the importance of
biology, particularly plant biology, as the Nation seeks to address
vital issues including a sustainable food supply, climate change and
energy security. We would like to thank the subcommittee for its
consideration of this testimony and for recognizing that its support of
agricultural research is an important investment in America's future.
ASPB is an organization of more than 5,000 professional plant
biologists, educators, graduate students, and postdoctoral scientists.
A strong voice for the global plant science community, our mission--
which is achieved through engagement in the research, education, and
public policy realms--is to promote the growth and development of plant
biology and plant biologists and to foster and communicate research in
plant biology. The Society publishes the highly cited and respected
journals Plant Physiology and The Plant Cell, and it has produced and
supported a range of materials intended to demonstrate fundamental
biological principles that can be easily and inexpensively taught in
school and university classrooms by using plants.
food, fuel, climate change, and health: plant biology research and
america's future
Plants are vital to our very existence. They harvest sunlight,
converting it to chemical energy for food and feed; they take up carbon
dioxide and produce oxygen; and they are almost always the primary
producers in the Earth's ecosystems. Indeed, plant biology research is
making many fundamental contributions in the areas of fuel security and
environmental stewardship; the continued and sustainable development of
better foods, fabrics, and building materials; and in the understanding
of basic biological principles that underpin improvements in the health
and nutrition of all Americans. To go further, plant biology research
can help the Nation both predict and prepare for the impacts of climate
change on American agriculture, and it can make major contributions to
our Nation's efforts to combat global warming.
In particular, plant biology is at the center of numerous
scientific breakthroughs in the increasingly interdisciplinary world of
alternative energy research. For example, interfaces among plant
biology, engineering, chemistry, and physics represent critical
frontiers in both basic biofuels research and bioenergy production.
Similarly, with the increase in plant genome sequencing and functional
genomics, the interface of plant biology and computer science is
essential to our understanding of complex biological systems ranging
from single cells to entire ecosystems.
Plant biology also has much to offer to our basic understanding of
biology. Many common biological problems can best be addressed using
plants. For example, plants cells are totipotent and, unlike animal
cells, can be regenerated to whole plants. Many genetic studies are
best done in plants due to the ability to analyze large numbers of
individuals. Fundamental biological discoveries (e.g., the discovery of
gene silencing) derive from initial studies in plants.
Despite the fact that plant biology research--the kind of research
funded by USDA--underpins so many vital practical considerations for
our country, the amount invested in understanding the basic function
and mechanisms of plants is relatively small when compared with the
impact it has on multibillion dollar sectors of the economy like
energy, agriculture, health and nutrition.
recommendations
ASPB is in an excellent position to articulate the Nation's plant
science priorities as they relate to agriculture. Our recommendations
are as follows:
--It is ASPB's hope that USDA will have an elevated role to play as
part of the expanding Federal research landscape. USDA already
funds research that is intended to provide a foundation for
creating sustainable food and new energy supplies; however,
much higher investment in competitive funding is needed if the
Nation is to continue to make ground-breaking discoveries. ASPB
strongly encourages the appropriation of at least the requested
level of $429 million in fiscal year 2011 for the Agriculture
and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). ASPB encourages efforts to
fully fund AFRI at the $700 million level, as currently
authorized in the Farm Bill. This is justified since AFRI will
play a vital role in maintaining America's food and energy
security through funding innovative research.
--There are clear opportunities to use biological systems to
ameliorate and respond to climate change, such as through
carbon sequestration or modification of plants to resist
environmental stress. Therefore, ASPB calls for additional
funding focused on studies of the effect of climate change on
agricultural cropping systems, basic studies of its effects on
plant growth and development, and targeted research focused on
modification of plants to resist climate change and for use in
carbon sequestration.
--Current estimates predict a significant shortfall in the needed
scientific and engineering workforce as the demographics of the
U.S. workforce change. For example, there is a clear need for
additional scientists in the areas of interdisciplinary energy
research and plant breeding. USDA has not traditionally been a
major funding agency for education and training, other than
that which occurs through the funding of individual
investigator and center grants. So ASPB applauds the pending
inauguration of the NIFA Fellows program. However, given the
expected need for additional scientists and engineers who are
well-grounded in agriculture research and development
activities, ASPB calls for increased funding of specific
programs (e.g., training grants and fellowships) that are
targeted to provide this needed workforce over the next 10
years and to adequately prepare these individuals for careers
in the agricultural research of the future. It should be noted
that this recommendation is directly in-line with the findings
of the recently published National Research Council (NRC)
report entitled ``A New Biology for the 21st Century: Ensuring
the United States Leads the Coming Biology Revolution.''
--Considerable research interest is now being paid to the use of
plant biomass for energy production. However, if crops are to
be used to their full potential, considerable effort must be
expended to improve the understanding of their basic biology
and development, as well as their agronomic performance.
Therefore, ASPB calls for additional funding that would be
targeted to efforts to increase the utility and agronomic
performance of bioenergy crops.
--The launch of NIFA in 2009 brought to the table numerous
representatives from Federal research agencies such as the
Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, and the
National Institutes of Health that welcomed the new research
structure at USDA. With NIFA now in place, USDA should be able
to cultivate stronger interagency relationships (as well,
potentially, as relationships with private philanthropies) and
take on bolder new initiatives to address grand challenges
related to food, energy, the environment, and health. Although
ASPB is excited to see this new research infrastructure take
shape, ASPB wants to ensure that USDA remains committed to
individual grantees, in addition to group awards and larger
multi-institution partnerships. Truly paradigm shifting
discoveries cannot be predicted and can only be insured by
maintaining a broad, diverse, and robust research agenda.
--The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) provides vital research to
serve USDA's mission and objectives and the Nation's
agricultural research needs. As USDA begins to transform its
extramural research programs through NIFA, ASPB asks that the
parallel reorganization of the Agency's intramural research
programs around the five core challenges identified by the USDA
be carried out with due care and diligence. Indeed, ASPB
supports continued robust funding for ARS.
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony on behalf of the
American Society of Plant Biologists. Please do not hesitate to contact
the American Society of Plant Biologists if we can be of any assistance
in the future. For more information about the American Society of Plant
Biologists, please see www.aspb.org.
______
Letter From Amicus Therapeutics
June 23, 2010.
Hon. Herb Kohl,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kohl: My name is John F. Crowley of Princeton, New
Jersey. I am honored today to present this letter of testimony to you
and the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies, and thank you for this opportunity. I do so as the
chairman and CEO of Amicus Therapeutics of Cranbury, New Jersey, a
biopharmaceutical company developing orally administered, small
molecule drugs called pharmacological chaperones, a novel, first-in-
class approach for treating a broad range of diseases with unmet
medical needs, including lysosomal storage disorders and diseases of
neurodegeneration. Amicus' lead program is in Phase 3 for the treatment
of Fabry disease, a rare lysosomal storage disease affecting an
estimated 10,000 individuals worldwide. I also do so as the father of
three children, two of whom bravely face each day living with Pompe
disease, another rare and chronic lysosomal storage disorder. Pompe is
a progressive, multi-systemic, often fatal muscular disease. From both
of my perspectives, I am most appreciative that the subcommittee is
discussing the FDA's review process for orphan products to treat rare
diseases. The time to consider change and build on past successes could
not be better.
a foundation of success
The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 has brought unprecedented success. To
date, in excess of 1,000 orphan product designations have been granted
by the FDA's Office of Orphan Product Development and more than 250
drugs and biologics have received approval by the FDA, collectively
helping hundreds of thousands of adults and children with rare
diseases. Among these are accomplishments I have participated in
professionally and, in the case of my own children, have witnessed most
personally. There are an estimated 7,000 rare diseases, each one
affecting 200,000 or fewer individuals, but collectively affecting 25
million Americans. Unfortunately, treatments exist for only a fraction
of these devastating, life-threatening diseases leaving so many people
of all ages with significant unmet medical need. And of those
treatments, the majority of approved orphan drugs are for those rare
diseases with higher prevalence.
continued unmet medical need
Rare or orphan diseases with lower prevalence remain without
treatment. Of 588 rare diseases included in a recent study by H.E.
Heemstra, et al, (Drug Discovery Today 14 (23-24):1166-73), 64 percent
(115/179) of the more common rare diseases had at least one orphan
designation, while only 32.5 percent (133/409) of the ultra-rare
diseases had at least one orphan designation. According to an Orphan
Drug Development Trends report published by BioMedical Insights in
January of this year, 83 percent of rare diseases are ultra-rare, yet
only 11 percent of orphan designations issued between 1997 and 2009
were for these ``ultra-rare'' diseases (144/1,310). What do these
numbers translate to for the average patient family in the rare disease
community? No treatment options. After a rollercoaster of a diagnostic
journey that takes an average of 5 years, the majority of individuals
and families facing rare, usually progressive and often fatal diseases,
may be ``lucky'' enough to finally learn the name and prognosis of what
they or their loved one has, but chances are they can do nothing about
it. In 2010, in the United States of America, that extent of unmet
medical need simply should not exist.
For most of these rare and extremely rare diseases, perhaps as many
as two-thirds, medical research is absent--completely. Affected
patients, their families and friends strive to bring attention to their
causes. For other diseases, such as Tay-Sachs, for example, medical
research is just now gaining momentum, despite it being one of the most
commonly known rare, genetic diseases, with one of the oldest advocacy
groups in the country, and the first disease for which a carrier
genetic test was perfected back in 1970. Yet it could be many more
years before a safe, effective treatment is ready for the clinic, and
tens of children and adults will still die from this neurodegenerative
disease. As a past-president of the National Tay-Sachs & Allied
Diseases Association, I've seen the hope sustained by parents listening
to academic researchers, while they watch Tay-Sachs ravage their young
children physically and mentally. And for those rare diseases fortunate
to have a treatment, not all is perfect. As can be the case with Pompe
disease, for example, many patients cannot tolerate the treatment due
to immunogenicity or other significant issues. For others, the
treatment may not be effective but there are no other options. Much
work remains to be done in orphan drug development to evolve the
unmistakably critical work already achieved for rare diseases.
ability to meet the challenges
In the year 2010, we have the collective ability to tackle the
challenges of understanding and developing viable treatment options for
rare and ultra-rare diseases with unmet medical need. Basic scientific,
biomedical and preclinical research is taking place with groundbreaking
technology in laboratories at colleges and universities, independent
academic medical centers, at the National Institutes of Health, and in
the biotech industry. Initiatives such as the Therapeutics of Rare and
Neglected Diseases (TRND) Program at the National Human Genome Research
Institute (NHGRI) have impressive capabilities and hold great promise
for discovery at the level of public/private collaboration that is
necessary to help address these challenges. In particular, this is a
new and exciting approach to moving forward from screening and
developing compounds through the junctures of pre-clinical and clinical
work, optimizing resources and harnessing the varied expertise of
collaborators along the way.
Collaboration is now mandated for Federal funding issued by the NIH
Office of Rare Diseases through its Rare Disease Clinical Research
Centers Consortia program. These grants support the formation of
cooperative agreements for: collaborative clinical studies,
investigator training, conducting pilot and demonstration projects,
providing a test bed for data collection, management, mining and
sharing, and access to rare disease information for basic and clinical
researchers, academic and practicing physicians, patients, and the lay
public--all across diverse geographies, institutions and stakeholders.
In fact, the patient community, with its advocates, outreach experts
and educators, can be considered a driving force in bringing the
professionals together.
Families and friends of children and adults affected by these
debilitating, horrific, often fatal rare diseases no longer passively
sit around sick rooms and hospital rooms. They--we, because I am one of
them, are well aware of the promising developments taking place in the
clean rooms of industry and research institutions and are confident
that technology can match our sense of urgency. Patient advocates are
proactive, agents for changing how this research can be conducted, how
quickly it gets translated to the clinic, all with the hope it will
positively influence their loved one's clinical outcome. Today's
patient advocacy and disease organizations are partners in social and
venture philanthropy. They want the exciting and promising technology
that exists for their diseases to see the light of day, and that
developing treatments and potential cures can be realities in their
lifetimes. Here are just two examples.
The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation is one such health venture
philanthropist. In 2000, there were few potential treatments in the CF
pipeline. Today, there are more than 30 treatments in development, a
few already available to patients, with a pipeline portfolio ranging
from gene therapy, protein rescue, mucus alteration, restoring airway
surface liquid (ion transport), anti-inflammatory, anti-infective,
transplantation, and nutrition. In the area of protein rescue alone,
the CF Foundation invested more than $100 million with Vertex
Pharmaceuticals and $25 million with PTC Therapeutics for two different
small molecules in the past few years.
Fight Spinal Muscular Atrophy dedicates itself to research for a
cure for this group of diseases which affect the motor neurons of the
spinal cord and brain stem. In its infantile form, SMA kills more
babies than any other genetic disease. With grants up to $250,000 each,
FightSMA is a social philanthropist funding about 20 academic and
medical institutions in the United States and internationally. The
organization brings approximately 25 SMA researchers together for an
annual scientific conference to encourage collaboration at the same
time that SMA-affected families come to meet each other for support and
learn from these researchers.
It is exactly this type of community-driven, cross-fertilization
and financial support of ideas, and sharing of disease experience that
has occurred at advocacy organization conferences for years that the
patient community is more recently asking take place on a broader scale
in clinical research and drug development. Patients are appreciative of
the active role of the Office of Rare Diseases at NIH in supporting
these meetings and of the Office of Orphan Product Development
participation at many programs. Collaborative approaches are in the
United States and abroad, originated by highly respected organizations
such as NORD and now assumed by their counterparts, such as EURORDIS,
CORD and ICORD. The 2010 European Conference on Rare Diseases held last
month in Krakow, Poland, attracted more than 600 participants from 43
countries, with one-third from Eastern Europe: the aim to discuss
public policies and actions that will improve the lives of people with
rare diseases. The rare disease community may be growing, but it
represents a world that is getting smaller all the time. The demands of
the diseases themselves always have been there; however, the presence
of the diseases is augmented by the fast-paced technology available to
researchers, the charged atmosphere of advocacy, immediate access to
information about diseases, research and support groups, and
connectiveness through the Internet and social media for all disease
stakeholders.
Collectively, these activities represent a trend toward
acceleration of all aspects of orphan drug development to ultimately,
and most importantly, benefit patients living with rare diseases.
keeping pace for change
Given these changes in the rare disease landscape, it is timely
that the subcommittee is discussing the FDA's review process for orphan
products. The sheer size of patient populations is an important factor
for consideration in study design. Affected individuals are part of
such small individual patient populations; they may represent disease
prevalence of as many as 67:100,000 to as few as 2:100,000. No one rare
disease exceeds an incidence of 200,000 in the United States. However,
as an overarching group of 25 million in this country alone, they have
several commonalities worthy of consideration. Limited individual
disease experience makes it unlikely that there are organized
registries from which to draw information for the majority of these
diseases, and unrealistic to consider conducting natural history
studies as prelude to or in parallel with clinical trials. (The topic
of disease and product registries currently is a controversial one in
the rare disease community and one worth exploring, as well.) All
numbers of subjects for any orphan product study should be carefully
considered based on current disease situations. Given that these
trials, especially registration studies requiring larger numbers of
subjects, typically necessitate global recruitment, protocols should be
able to satisfy institutional review boards/ethics committees
internationally. In the ultra-rare category, consideration also should
be given to combined Phase 1/2 and Phase 2/3 studies with a Phase 4
commitment from sponsor companies making these investments.
The subcommittee should respectively consider funding that enables
the Agency to focus on orphan diseases/orphan products beyond the fine
work already being conducted by the Office of Orphan Product
Development. The multi-systemic, complex nature of the majority of rare
diseases, as genetic, metabolic, inborn errors of metabolism, further
complicates a simple route forward for the guidance and development of
well-designed clinical protocols. Therefore, study design guidance and
review for rare diseases should also have an approach
characteristically distinct from that used with common disease guidance
and review. The FDA would benefit from a dedicated team of experts in
the genetic and metabolic disorders that together with regulatory
colleagues can offer guidance to study sponsors that will result in
clinical protocols that account for limited patient numbers, the most
current collective thinking on disease biomarkers, surrogate endpoints
and better use of pharmacogenetics. Along these same lines, the Agency
might consider having reviewers, staff other than OOPD, spend more time
with rare disease patient organizations to learn from their leadership
and members what they think and know of clinical trials, barriers to
participation, etc. This might be mutually beneficial for educational
purposes and understanding the rare disease patient experience.
the cost of change
This suggested interaction might enhance the understanding for
addressing the tolerance for risk in drug development in the rare
disease space. Individuals directly affected by these highly unusual
disorders, or their parents, custodial family members and caregivers
are experiencing unusual, almost unique and unprecedented unmet need.
They have a sense of urgency few if any can understand, but this does
not necessarily cloud their judgment or ability to understand the risks
and benefits of clinical trial participation. There should be no less
scrutiny of safety for patients with ultra-orphan diseases but many of
the traditional pre-clinical and clinical safety studies typically
required of most drugs need to be reevaluated in the context of the
cost and time associated and the severity of the unmet need.
Certainly, the protracted timelines too often impose the ultimate
cost on affected families awaiting treatment for their rare disease . .
. the loss of their child or other loved one. It behooves the Agency to
reassess the process and the extraordinary financial costs involved in
developing orphan drugs. For example, the last five drugs developed and
approved to treat lysosomal storage diseases have cost more than $200
million each in research and development expenses alone to develop,
while addressing populations in the United States of less than 3,000
patients. There is no current economic framework that exists to promote
this kind of investment. While the industry is appreciative of the
existing incentives established by the Orphan Drug Act 27 years ago, it
is time to update these to ensure ongoing and future innovation to
benefit rare diseases. Some very practical considerations are:
investment tax credits, permanent R&D credits and tax grants for
companies conducting research for ultra-orphan treatments, accelerated
clinical studies, and special tax treatments for investments in smaller
companies with fewer than 250 employees.
Change does not come easily. It was not an easy process when a
group of parents lead by Abbey Meyers spearheaded the development of
the Orphan Drug Act in 1983. In January of 1984, when Ronald Reagan
signed the Orphan Drug Act into law, with Democrats and Republicans at
his side, he stated that: ``I only wish that with the stroke of this
pen that I could also decree that the pain and suffering of people
living with these diseases would cease as well.'' It didn't, but the
Act did create an environment with a system of special incentives for
industry and certain government supported programs that spawned a new
era of research and drug development. We have come very far in that
last quarter of a century but we have much further to go. The change
brought about by the Orphan Drug Act improved hundreds of thousands of
lives in this country and abroad, helped launch an industry and
established the global rare disease advocacy movement. It does not come
easily for every family that struggles with illness and then receives a
life-altering diagnosis of a rare disease with no treatment or cure.
But each of us committed to orphan drug development, including the FDA
and those responsible for seeing the Agency is appropriately funded,
owe those families a more-than-fighting chance that their medical needs
will be met.
Respectfully submitted,
John F. Crowley,
Chairman and CEO.
______
Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI)
The Animal Welfare Institute welcomes this opportunity to submit
testimony in support of funding for animal welfare-related activities
within the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
usda/aphis/animal care/animal welfare act (awa) enforcement
AWI Request: $23 Million (Near-Level Funding)
Over the past decade, the subcommittee has responded to the urgent
need for increased funding for the Animal Care (AC) division to improve
its inspections of nearly 16,000 sites, including animal dealers,
commercial breeding facilities, laboratories, zoos, circuses, and
airlines to ensure compliance with AWA standards. Animal Care now has
115 inspectors (with two vacancies), compared to 64 inspectors at the
end of the 1990s. During fiscal year 2009, they conducted 13,948
inspections, including required annual visits to all research
facilities that alone house over 1 million animals (excluding birds,
rats, and mice who are not covered by law). Moreover, AC inspectors
engaged in extended and more time-consuming follow-up with licensees
regarded as problems because of the nature and frequency of their
violations.
It is important to sustain the progress that has been made. This
budget request of $23 million provides a minimal increase over fiscal
year 2010 to cover pay costs as well as the added responsibilities
associated both with the growing number of licensed/registered
facilities, and with enforcing the Congressional ban on imports from
foreign puppy mills.
aphis/animal care/horse protection act (hpa) enforcement
AWI Request: Support Administration's Request for $900,000
The goal of the Horse Protection Act, passed in 1970, is to end the
cruel practice of soring, by which unscrupulous owners and/or trainers
primarily of Tennessee Walking Horses intentionally inflict pain on the
legs and feet of horses, through the application of chemical and
mechanical irritants, to produce an exaggerated gait. In 2008, the
American Association of Equine Practitioners condemned soring as ``one
of the most significant welfare issues faced by the equine industry.''
Three Girl Scouts bravely documented the brutality of this crime in
their video ``See it through my eyes.'' (Available at www.youtube.com/
watch?v=kqFeYu1CrjU)
Throughout its history, however, the law has been openly flouted
and inadequate funding has hampered enforcement. USDA inspectors are
able to attend fewer than 6 percent of Tennessee Walking Horse shows.
Consequently, there is continued reliance on an industry-run system of
certified Horse Industry Organization (HIO) inspection programs that
utilize Designated Qualified Persons (DQPs), usually industry insiders
with a history of looking the other way. Reliance on DQPs has been an
abysmal failure. Statistics clearly indicate that the presence of USDA
inspectors at shows results in violations being cited at a far higher
rate than occurs when DQPs are present. The greater the likelihood of a
USDA inspection, the greater the deterrent effect on those who
routinely sore their horses. Enforcement of this law should not be
entrusted to individuals with a stake in the status quo.
USDA is to be commended for seeking to do a more rigorous job of
enforcement than has been done in the past. For instance, in 2009,
inspectors cited twice as many violations at the largest show, the
National Celebration, as in the previous year. However, the top three
winning horses at the Celebration were afterwards found to have been in
apparent violation of the HPA.
Given the problems as outlined above and in separate, more detailed
testimony signed by AWI and many other groups (www.awionline.org/hpa),
it is clear that USDA cannot make progress in this area with current
funding levels. We ask that Congress appropriate the $900,000 for HPA
enforcement as provided in the Administration's budget. This sum would
allow government oversight at many more horse shows and greater
investment in technologies (gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and
thermography) that improve detection of sored horses. It should be
noted that in fiscal year 2007, the use of GC/MS, which detects foreign
substances used to sore horses, resulted in positive findings in 50
percent of the animals tested.
aphis/investigative and enforcement services (ies)
AWI Request: $15 Million
IES handles investigations related to enforcement of the laws and
regulations for APHIS' programs, which involves collection of evidence;
both civil and criminal investigations; and investigations carried out
in conjunction with Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies. In
addition, IES, in collaboration with USDA's Office of the General
Counsel, handles other types of enforcement actions, including
stipulations and formal administrative proceedings. We respectfully
request a $15 million appropriation for IES to enable the Service to
fulfill its full range of responsibilities, particularly its increasing
Horse Protection Act and Animal Welfare Act investigatory demands.
The number of HPA investigations undertaken by IES has jumped
dramatically in the past half dozen years from a mere 7 in 2004 to 152
this year. IES must have additional funds to deal with this
substantially increasing workload. Further, it is anticipated that HPA
enforcement by Animal Care will continue to rise to reach a level where
it will actually serve as a deterrent, and thus IES must be equipped to
handle the ever-increasing number of cases that are expected. New
strategies are being employed to further strengthen enforcement,
including the consolidation of cases of alleged violations (Form 7077s)
over a 2-year period, thereby demonstrating that violations are not
isolated but of an ongoing nature.
We applaud and encourage increased attention by Animal Care, IES,
and OGC in their efforts to stop the abuse of gaited horses. We are
confident that, with the support of Congress, USDA can ensure a fair,
competitive field that permits horses and their riders to win shows
based upon the natural animated gait of the horses rather than a
freakish gait induced by an array of agonizing techniques applied to
the front feet and legs of the horses.
agricultural research service/nal/animal welfare information center
(awic)
AWI Request: $1,978,400
We very much appreciate the subcommittee's continuing support for
the Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC). AWIC's services are
vitally important to the Nation's biomedical research enterprise, as
well as other regulated entities, because they facilitate compliance
with specific requirements of the Federal animal welfare regulations
and policies governing animal-related research. It proves its worth
time and time again.
The AWIC was established in 1986 in response to a mandate in the
Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals amendment to the Animal
Welfare Act (AWA). The Center serves as a clearinghouse, training
center, and education resource for those involved in the use of animals
for research, testing, and teaching, as well as other entities covered
by the AWA. It provides training and compiles, distributes, and posts
on its Web site information resources from the scientific literature to
assist researchers who use animals. The subjects covered include
husbandry, handling, and care of animals; personnel training; animal
behavior; alternatives; improved methodologies; environmental
enrichment; and pain control via anesthesia and analgesia and other
methods. It also serves as a resource for the wider scientific and
agricultural communities by providing access to material on zoonotic
diseases such as avian influenza, transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies, tuberculosis, West Nile Virus, foot and mouth
disease, the H1N1 virus, and others. Its activities contribute
significantly to science-based decision-making in animal care.
In fiscal year 2009, staff conducted 13 sessions of AWIC's
workshop, ``Meeting the Information Requirements of the Animal Welfare
Act'' (evaluations of which are overwhelmingly positive, with
participants indicating a high degree of new information acquisition);
this was an increase of six over fiscal year 2008. At the end of 2009
in Kansas City, AWIC and APHIS/Animal Care jointly presented the
workshop ``Considering Alternatives; Making a Difference,'' which was
open, without cost, to any research facility personnel; about 60 people
attended. AWIC and AC will collaborate again this April, again in
Kansas City, on a workshop for Animal Care inspectors to help them
better understand the alternatives requirement. It will train them to
do alternatives searches so that they can better evaluate the products
of such searches conducted by research institutions.
The AWIC Web site (http://awic.nal.usda.gov/) is one of the most
accessed sites at NAL, with an average of over 363,000 page-views each
month in fiscal year 2009, a 7 percent increase over fiscal year 2008.
Many improvements to the Web site have been made in the past year,
including increased timeliness and accessibility through Facebook, a
Twitter account, and a blog. Currently, 250 full text documents are
available on the Web site; 11 new ones were added in fiscal year 2009,
and already completed or in process for fiscal year 2010 are documents
on big cats, camels (update), blood collection, zebra fish, swine,
elephants (update), rodent enrichment, sheep and goats, reducing animal
numbers in research, and interpretive summaries of the Animal Welfare
Act. Making this information available in a timely fashion urgently
requires additional staff.
The need and demand for AWIC's services continue to outstrip its
resources. We write in support of an appropriation of $1,978,400, which
is urgently needed to fund, in addition to current salaries and other
expenses, AWIC's services and its ongoing efforts to improve their
delivery:
--$300,000--To support the addition of 2 FTEs to the professional
staff.
--$100,000--Develop Web-based training modules, including interactive
modules, in order to provide online delivery of training
opportunities.
--$50,000--Present workshops for research personnel, in collaboration
with Animal Care, similar to those held in 2009 in Kansas City
described above. The workshops must be free of charge to the
institutions in order to encourage attendance.
--$20,500--Internet services.
--$10,000--AWIC staff training.
--$15,000--To fund an internship program that would provide
opportunities for postgraduate students (including
veterinarians) to work on special projects, such as creating
specialized information resources on animal (especially
zoonotic) diseases.
--$200,000--Resume acquisition of veterinary publications that NAL
discontinued several years ago, and increase the pace of
indexing all such publications.
--$259,000--Overhead to ARS and NAL.
--$50,000--Meet congressional mandate to digitize more materials; in
particular, scanning historically relevant animal welfare
materials dating from the 1800s.
--$65,000--Funding is urgently needed to update Essentials for
Animals in Research, as well as certain animal care manuals,
and then to translate them, as well as, and perhaps most
especially, the Animal Welfare Act and its regulations, into
Spanish; develop training DVDs, etc. In the past, this program
yielded very useful products, including the original Essentials
for Animal Research: A Primer for Research Personnel (which was
also translated into Spanish and is still among the top 10
downloaded documents); a video on normal animal behaviors; and
a training video on using animals in research. It also provided
support for the first World Congress on Animal Use in the Life
Sciences, and for the proceedings of conferences for the
Scientists Center for Animal Welfare.
The growing numbers of Spanish-speaking animal-care personnel in
U.S. research facilities and zoos, as well as increasing interest on
the part of the scientific communities in Central and South America,
have made the availability of Spanish-language materials a priority.
AWIC's value to the research community and other entities that must
comply with the Animal Welfare Act, and to the general public,
justifies this modest proposed increase in its budget.
food safety and inspection service/humane methods of slaughter act
enforcement
AWI Request: Reallocate $2 Million From Existing Activity (HATS)
We request that $2 million of the FSIS Humane-handling Activities
Tracking (HATS) funding be allocated to strengthen Humane Methods of
Slaughter Act enforcement via creation of a mobile team of slaughter
plant auditors or by hiring additional District Veterinary Medical
Specialists. While past appropriations have contributed to improved
HMSA oversight, inadequate enforcement remains a problem. We have
accumulated evidence of repeated violations at particular Federal
slaughter plants, as well as data demonstrating that humane slaughter
and handling violations are reported with greater frequency in the
presence of outside inspection personnel, such as the DVMSs, as
compared to in-plant personnel.
Based on these findings, we respectfully request that funds be
appropriated toward one of two alternatives: (1) to convene a roving
slaughter inspection team that would conduct mostly unscheduled audits
of handling and slaughter practices in Federal plants to ensure
compliance with humane standards; or (2) to increase the presence of
outside personnel by hiring additional DVMSs to provide scheduled and
unscheduled plant audits in accordance with their preexisting duties as
prescribed by FSIS. Hiring and training of these new personnel could be
funded from $2 million of the $3 million currently allocated to the
Humane-handling Activities Tracking computer system.
office of inspector general/animal fighting enforcement
AWI Request: Support Administration's Request for $90.3 Million
In 2007, violations of the AWA's animal fighting provisions, as
well as the possession of related implements, became felonies. AWI
supports providing OIG with adequate funding to allow it to pursue
animal fighting cases vigorously. Animal fighting is often associated
with other violent crimes, including drugs, weapons violations, and
even homicide, thus posing a threat to both the welfare of animals and
the welfare of our communities. This level of funding is also needed to
enable OIG to carry out audits and investigations to improve compliance
with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, the Horse Protection Act, and
the downed animal rules.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Clinical Research
Organizations (ACRO)
Chairman Kohl, Ranking Member Brownback, and members of the
subcommittee: The Association of Clinical Research Organizations (ACRO)
represents the world's leading clinical research organizations (CROs).
Our member companies provide a wide range of specialized services
across the entire spectrum of development for new drugs, biologics and
medical devices, from pre-clinical, proof of concept and first-in-man
studies through post-approval and pharmacovigilance research. With more
than 70,000 employees engaged in research activities in more than 115
countries around the world, ACRO advances clinical outsourcing to
improve the quality, efficiency and safety of biomedical research. Last
year, member companies were involved in conducting more than 9,000
clinical trials that included nearly 2 million research participants.
From approving new drugs and biologics to ensuring the safety of
the food supply, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration faces many
challenges across a diverse portfolio. And, whether the issue is
assessing the safety of marketed drugs or monitoring the conduct of
clinical trials, that portfolio is increasingly global in scope. Thus,
we applaud Commissioner Hamburg's commitment to international
cooperation and engagement. In fact, under Section 903 of the Food Drug
and Cosmetic Act, it is part of the FDA's mission to ``(b)(3)
participate through appropriate processes with representatives of other
countries to reduce the burden of regulation, harmonize regulatory
requirements, and achieve appropriate reciprocal arrangements.''
Today, FDA-regulated products are part of an international
marketplace in which consumers shop, and borders are no longer
barriers. In 2007, the United States imported more than $2 trillion
worth of FDA-regulated products from roughly 200 countries or
territories. Both the number of drugs manufactured at foreign sites and
the number of foreign sites making FDA-regulated drugs have more than
doubled since 2001. Given these realities of the 21st century,
international activities at FDA are no longer ``discretionary'';
rather, they are an integral part of our Nation's public health
apparatus.
Like many other important economic activities, the conduct of
clinical research has become increasingly globalized in recent years.
For example, in 2004 clinical trial activity in India totaled $30
million; the estimate for 2010 is $1.5 billion, a figure that will
constitute 5 percent of all clinical trials worldwide. According to
clinicaltrials.gov, today 53 percent of clinical studies are performed
in the United States, 24 percent are performed in Europe, and 23
percent are performed in the rest of the world.
The expansion of clinical research to foreign countries results in
benefits to U.S. patients. As The Case for Globalization, (a white
paper ACRO commissioned in 2009,) suggested, a cancer trial that would
take 5.8 years using only U.S. patients would be completed in only 1.9
years when global research sites are used. While this globalization is
a positive trend for many reasons, it presents challenges as well,
especially in terms of the FDA's capacity to oversee non-U.S. drug
development and manufacturing.
Globalization of the biomedical research industry has greatly
increased the demand on the FDA's resources. Between 2004 and 2007, the
number of FDA-regulated investigators increased by 15.9 percent in
Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), by 12.1 percent in Latin America and
by 10.2 percent in the Asia-Pacific region. (Meanwhile, the number of
North American and Western European investigators declined by 5.2
percent and 6.1 percent, respectively.) Yet, despite the tremendous
growth of clinical research abroad, 83 percent of FDA clinical
investigator inspections between 2000 and 2008 were conducted in the
United States and only 10 percent outside the United States and Western
Europe.
As part of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA, ACRO supports an FDA
budget that provides adequate resources to fulfill the Agency's far-
flung obligations. Beyond the agency-wide budget, ACRO is especially
interested in funding for the FDA's Office of International Programs
(OIP). The President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2011 requests
only $16.9 million for OIP.
ACRO recommends funding OIP at $35 million in fiscal year 2011.
Such an increase would not only improve the FDA's capacity to perform
audits and inspections around the world, but facilitate capacity-
building in, and in cooperation with, the non-U.S. regulatory
authorities whose competence and strength will ultimately impact the
safety and efficacy of the drugs and biologics used by patients in the
United States. Simply, the FDA remains the gold standard among drug
regulators worldwide. As such, it is imperative for the FDA to increase
its oversight capabilities in countries where many of the drugs it will
approve in the future are being tested and to actively partner with its
foreign counterparts. A budget of $35 in fiscal year 2011 would allow
the Office of International Programs to accelerate the necessary
globalization of the FDA's presence.
Thank you for allowing ACRO to submit this statement. Please feel
free to have your staff contact us with any questions.
______
Letter From the California Association of Winegrape Growers;
WineAmerica; the Winegrape Growers of America; and the Wine Institute
April 7, 2010.
Hon. Herb Kohl,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kohl and Senator Brownback: Our organizations are
pleased to provide recommendations to fund important programs that will
allow the national grape and wine industry to continue its record of
growth in job creation, exports and rural development efforts to
attract tourism and diversify local economies.
recommendation: funding for grape research
Grapes are the Nation's eighth largest crop. Grape growing
contributes to the U.S. economy in diverse ways. It generates jobs,
exports, tax revenues, tourism and enhances the quality of life in
rural communities while producing outstanding wines, juices, raisins,
and table grapes. But wine and grapes and grape products are subject to
intense global competition that may seriously affect the ability of our
industry to successfully compete. The industry's future success will
hinge on public and private policies that facilitate, rather than
impede, responses to new competitive conditions.
The Federal Government does not subsidize grape production.
American grape growers compete in the global market with growers who
are subsidized by their countries. Our success in maintaining a
competitive edge is directly tied to investment by industry and
government in research and extension of research results to stimulate
innovation by industry and accelerate the adoption of new best
practices. This will keep grapes and wine competitive, enhance our
environmental stewardship, create new jobs and generate revenues to
keep rural communities healthy.
the viticulture consortium
We support funding for the very successful Viticulture Consortium
which has been administered as a national competitive peer-and-industry
reviewed program. It is one of the finest examples of collaboration
between industry, Federal and State resources to provide and enhance
efforts to improve a major agricultural industry's quality and cost
effectiveness. Initiated in fiscal year 1996, the Viticulture
Consortium is administered by Cornell University, Pennsylvania State
University and the University of California and funds competitive
grants in about 20 States for grape-related research. The program is
designed to focus research efforts to avoid duplication and target
resources to strategic priorities that will accelerate innovation and
knowledge-based tools to enhance the competitiveness of the grape and
grape products industries that are facing intense margin pressures and
loss of market share to imports. The Consortium leverages Federal,
State and industry funding to maximize coordination, collaboration and
efficiency, eliminate duplication and ensure the extension of research
results to industry users.
We respectfully recommend increasing funding for the Viticulture
Consortium to $3 million.
ars grape research
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget increases ARS funding for
grape-related research. We support those increases:
We support the:
--President's budget increase for USDA/ARS Crop Breeding and
Protection, specifically the $400,000 to breed new table grape
varieties that are tolerant to drought stress and $500,000 to
phenotype the grape collection for drought tolerance and winter
hardiness.
--President's budget increase for USDA/ARS Plant, Animal, and
Microbial Collections, specifically the $400,000 to strengthen
the National Plant Germplasm System to expand capacity and
conservation of horticultural crops.
--President's budget increase for USDA/ARS Adapting American
Agriculture to a Changing Global Climate, specifically the
$500,000 to develop greenhouse gas mitigation solutions and
carbon sequestration management practices for specialty crops.
recommendation: funding for pierce's disease control, containment and
research
Pierce's disease, a fatal infection of grape vines by the bacterium
Xyella fastidiosa (XF), is being spread throughout California by the
Glassy-winged Sharpshooter (GWSS). GWSS was first detected in
California in 1989. It has invaded much of southern California and is
effectively contained in the southern San Joaquin Valley and southern
California. This vigorous and difficult-to-control insect vector,
indigenous to the southeastern United States and northern Mexico,
threatens California's entire grape and wine-producing community.
Commercial grape varieties grown in California cannot tolerate
infection by the If bacterium and are quickly killed or rendered
uneconomical. There is no cure for Pierce's disease.
The onslaught of the GWSS and its spread of Pierce's disease has
triggered a massive and expensive cooperative response by the Federal
and State agencies, California nurseries, citrus and winegrape growers
to contain, control and develop long-term viable management solutions.
There are many other crops threatened by the agents that cause Pierce's
disease, including almonds, citrus, stone fruits, alfalfa, and
oleander. The risks to California agriculture presented by the GWSS
were recognized by a USDA declaration of emergency June 23, 2000, and
subsequent allocation of CCC funds to conduct research, manage and
fight the disease.
While progress is being made, annual discoveries have shown the
need to continue funding this vital program. Last year GWSS egg masses
were found on nursery plants shipped to Amador and San Luis Obispo
counties. This underscores the importance of an aggressive containment
and control program with a strong nursery shipping inspection
component.
Congress has appropriated money to fund GWSS and Pierce's disease
research beginning in fiscal year 2001 and every year thereafter. To
date, other stakeholders have contributed $99.5 million to assist in
funding research and inspection efforts. The breakdown is as follows:
California State government: $59.5 million; local government: $1.3
million; growers and vintners: $38.7 million. California's experience
in controlling and containing Pierce's disease assists States that have
infestations by sharing resources on how to stop the spread and
eventually eradicate the disease and the insect that spreads it.
Our organizations strongly support an increase in funding for the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for the control and
containment to $30 million.
We also request $3 million in National Institute of Food and
Agriculture funding for research work on Pierce's disease at the
University of California.
market access program
The Market Access Program (MAP) provides export assistance to over
70 different agricultural industries, most producing specialty crops.
This assistance is frequently the only kind of government export
assistance given these producers to allow them to compete in world
markets against highly subsidized European producers. The wine industry
has made excellent use of the MAP program. According to Wine Institute,
exports have increased 80 percent by value over the past 10 years, and
despite an export rise of 6 percent in value in 2008 over the prior
year, our industry has less than 6 percent of the world's wine export
market. Clearly, there is considerable potential to increase our share.
MAP is funded at $200 million per year in mandatory funds in the
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008. Funding for the MAP pales in
comparison to the support given other major world producers.
We respectfully request that the full amount of mandatory funding
remain intact for this program in fiscal year 2011.
Chairman Kohl and Senator Brownback, we appreciate your
consideration of our requests.
Sincerely,
Camron King, Program Manager,
California Association of Winegrape Growers.
Bill Nelson, President,
WineAmerica.
Ron Bitner, Chairman,
Winegrape Growers of America.
Sally Hope Murphy,
Wine Institute.
______
Prepared Statement of Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform (CCAR)
Chairman Kohl, Ranking Member Brownback, and members of the
subcommittee: My name is Steven Etka. I am submitting this testimony on
behalf of the Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform (CCAR) regarding
fiscal year 2011 funding requests for USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards Agency (GIPSA).
The Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform (CCAR) is a national
alliance of organizations working to provide a voice for farmers and
ranchers involved in contract agriculture, as well as the communities
in which they live. The goal of the campaign is to assure that the
processor-producer relationship serves as a fair partnership, rather
than a dictatorship.
The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 prohibits packers, swine
contractors, and live poultry dealers from engaging in unfair, unjustly
discriminatory, or deceptive trade practices. The Act is administered
by the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Agency (GIPSA).
Contract poultry growers regularly experience unfair and deceptive
treatment in their dealings with the live poultry dealers with whom
they contract. While is it GIPSA's job to take action against these
companies when such practices occur, the Agency's capacity to do so has
been greatly limited by staff resources. As a result, many growers have
had to wait years for their cases to be addressed, and others have had
cases unresolved because of lack of resources at GIPSA. Because of the
vulnerable economic positions that most growers are in, justice delayed
on enforcement of unfair practices is indeed justice denied.
Therefore, we are greatly encouraged by the new dedication to the
mission of GIPSA by the Obama Administration, the recent actions taken
by the Agency to increase enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards
Act, and their willingness to do what's necessary to make further
improvements. In keeping with that new commitment, the Administration's
fiscal year 2011 budget requests an increase of $2.035 million for the
Packers and Stockyards Program within GIPSA, to add 16 additional staff
years to strengthen enforcement of the Act.
As described in USDA's Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Justification
document (page 20-7):
``This increase will strengthen direct enforcement of the Packers and
Stockyards (P&S) Act and promote greater voluntary compliance with the
Act through an expanded GIPSA presence within the industry. The P&S Act
provides an important safety net for livestock producers and poultry
growers in rural America by prohibiting unfair, deceptive, and
fraudulent practices in the livestock, poultry, and meatpacking
industries. As such, compliance with the Act is a measure of the level
of protection provided in the marketplace. The Agency strives to
increase industry compliance to maximize the level of protection
afforded to all market participants. GIPSA conducts routine and ongoing
regulatory inspections and audits to assess whether subject entities
are operating in compliance with the Act, and conducts investigations
of potential P&S Act violations identified by either industry
complaints or previous GIPSA regulatory inspections. All activities are
carried out by professionals including economists, attorneys,
accountants, and agricultural marketing professionals. Economic
conditions will result in a continued increase in complaints and,
therefore, an increased need for GIPSA protection under the Packers and
Stockyards Act. Additional resident agents and investigative attorneys
are needed to expand investigative, regulatory, and audit activities in
order to raise industry compliance levels from the 80 percent level
attained in 2008; enhance market protections for buyers and sellers of
livestock, poultry, and meat; and enforce the amendments in the 2008
Farm Bill. Funding will also provide for attorneys to provide
additional legal support for enforcement of the P&S Act.''
We strongly urge the subcommittee to provide the increased
resources requested by GIPSA for Packers and Stockyards Act
enforcement. Without swift and thorough enforcement of the act, contact
growers will continue to experience trade practice abuses that are
unacceptable.
______
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 2011. 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. In 2008, Congress passed the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act (FCEA). The FCEA addressed the cost
sharing required from the Basin Funds. In so doing, the FCEA named the
cost sharing requirement as the Basin States Program (BSP). The BSP
will provide 30 percent of the total amount that will be spent each
year by the combined EQIP and BSP effort.
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 millions of dollars per year due to
the River's salinity.
The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is
the State agency charged with protecting California's interests and
rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River system.
In this capacity, California along with the other six Colorado River
Basin States through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
(Forum), the interstate organization responsible for coordinating the
Basin States' salinity control efforts, established numeric criteria in
June 1975 for salinity concentrations in the River. These criteria were
established to lessen the future damages in the Lower Basin States of
Arizona, California, and Nevada, as well as assist the United States in
delivering water of adequate quality to Mexico in accordance with
Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission.
The goal of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program is to
offset the effects of water resources development in the Colorado River
Basin after 1972 as each State develops its Colorado River Compact
apportionments. In close cooperation with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and pursuant to requirements of the Clean Water
Act (Public Law 92-500), every 3 years the Forum prepares a formal
report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River, anticipated future
salinity, and the program elements necessary to keep the salinity
concentrations (measured in Total Dissolved Solids--TDS) at or below
the levels measured in the Colorado River system in 1972 at Imperial
Dam, and below Parker and Hoover Dams. The latest report was prepared
in 2008 titled: 2008 Review, Water Quality Standards for Salinity,
Colorado River System (2008 Review). The plan necessary for controlling
salinity and reducing downstream damages has been captioned the ``Plan
of Implementation.'' The 2008 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 Colorado River Board supports the
recommendation of the Advisory Council and urges this subcommittee to
support funding for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program
for 2011 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 2011, 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.
______
Letter From the Colorado River Commission of Nevada
March 5, 2010.
Hon. Herb Kohl,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
RE: Support of Funding of the Department of Agriculture's Fiscal Year
2011 Appropriations
Dear Chairman Kohl: As a Nevada representative of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum, the Colorado River Commission of
Nevada supports full funding of the Department of Agriculture's fiscal
year 2011 appropriations for the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) and recommends that this Committee advise the
Administration that 2.5 percent or, at a minimum, $20,000,000, of the
EQIP funds be designated for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program.
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.
Sincerely,
George M. Caan,
Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Brownback, it is my pleasure to
submit this statement on behalf of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. We
commend the subcommittee for convening this hearing to consider Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) review of products for rare and neglected
diseases and to assess the impact of priority review vouchers for
tropical diseases. For all of those affected by rare and neglected
diseases, an efficient and effective review system is absolutely
critical. Delays in the evaluation of safety and effectiveness of
promising new therapies for rare diseases adversely impact those
affected by these diseases, and we support efforts by the Agency to
improve its review record as well as the oversight provided by
Congress.
the cf pipeline
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a disease that affects only 30,000
Americans and 70,000 individuals worldwide. The effects of this disease
are severe, despite significant therapeutic advances, outstanding
management of the disease by patients and their physicians, and
enhanced adherence to standards of clinical care. There is a pressing
need for improved therapies for CF, and as new treatments are
developed, efficient review is necessary.
Through aggressive investment in and management of the CF
therapeutic development program, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation is now
managing a rich portfolio of potential new treatments with more than 30
drugs in the clinical development pipeline. Included in our research
efforts are drugs that may correct the genetic defects that cause CF.
The CF Foundation is assuming an expansive role in research, supporting
basic research, functioning as a venture philanthropist through
investment in biotechnology companies for development of new CF
therapies, and coordinating CF care quality improvement through a
patient registry that includes most CF patients in the Nation.
The venture philanthropy effort has yielded a number of potential
CF treatments. Our efforts to date have focused on translating basic
research findings into agents for clinical testing, coordinating the
clinical trials network for testing CF treatments, and removing
barriers to participation in trials by CF patients. As promising
treatments will soon emerge from the development pipeline, our
attention is increasingly focused on guaranteeing an efficient FDA
review process.
We have identified a number of issues that should be addressed to
improve FDA review of CF therapies, and we believe that FDA action on
these issues would benefit review of all rare disease treatments. These
issues include: (1) identification of and regulatory agreement
regarding endpoints for approval of rare disease treatments; (2) making
widely and readily known the process for validation of biomarkers to
identify subpopulations of CF patients who might benefit from therapies
approved for other populations; (3) consistency between FDA and the
European Medicines Agency, to eliminate difficulties associated with
conducting parallel and duplicative trials in orphan populations; and
(4) regulatory guidance regarding methods for evaluating supplemental
uses of devices, including nebulizers, without undertaking trials that
are prohibitive for cost and other reasons. We also encourage the
Agency to ensure that it receives appropriate expert advice and
guidance on rare diseases as products for those diseases are reviewed.
We are encouraged by initiatives that the Agency has undertaken to
enhance its scientific expertise for review of rare diseases and more
generally by the willingness of FDA leaders and review staff to engage
in constructive dialogue to address the problems of rare disease review
that we have identified.
The joint regulatory science initiative of FDA and the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) signals the firm commitment of the agencies
to enhance the scientific expertise of FDA review staff. This effort,
still a relatively new one, promises to provide special benefits in
strengthening the scientific knowledge and experience for rare disease
treatment review. In addition, the Agency directed important resources
and attention to rare disease treatments by naming a lead reviewer on
rare diseases. We have also found the Agency to be willing to engage in
constructive dialogue to address other problems posed by rare disease
review and those issues that are specific to CF product review.
We applaud the subcommittee for turning its attention to FDA review
of treatments for rare diseases and to evaluating initiatives or
programs that might enhance such review. The priority review voucher
program for rare diseases deserves a fair and full evaluation, to
ensure it is meeting program goals and to assess whether its expansion
to rare diseases might be appropriate. We support a collaborative and
constructive approach to enhancing FDA review and are pleased to see
that spirit of cooperation in the efforts of the subcommittee.
Thank you again for this opportunity to submit this statement.
______
Prepared Statement of the Farm Credit Administration (FCA)
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Leland A. Strom,
chairman and chief executive officer of the Farm Credit Administration
(FCA or Agency). On behalf of my colleagues on the FCA Board, Kenneth
Spearman of Florida and Nancy Pellett of Iowa, and all the dedicated
men and women of the Agency, I am pleased to provide this testimony.
Before I discuss the Agency's role, responsibilities, and budget
request, I would like to thank the subcommittee staff for its
assistance during the budget process. Also, I would respectfully bring
to the subcommittee's attention that the funds used by FCA to pay its
administrative expenses are assessed and collected annually from the
Farm Credit System (FCS or System) institutions we regulate and
examine--the FCS banks, associations, and service corporations, and the
Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac). FCA does not
receive a Federal appropriation.
Earlier this fiscal year, the Agency submitted a proposed total
budget request of $59,537,346 for fiscal year 2011. FCA's proposed
budget for fiscal year 2011 includes funding from current and prior
assessments of $59,400,000 on System institutions, including Farmer
Mac. Almost all this amount (approximately 83 percent) goes for
salaries, benefits, and related costs.
The fiscal year 2011 proposed budget is driven largely by two
factors: (1) stress on the System caused by conditions in the
agricultural and the general economy and (2) the large number of
retirements that FCA anticipates in the coming 5 years. Although the
System remains safe and sound overall, risks have increased across the
System, and conditions in several institutions have deteriorated. As a
result, we are hiring additional staff members to provide more
intensive examination and oversight. We are also hiring employees to
fill the positions of those who will be retiring soon. The funding
we've requested for fiscal year 2011 will allow us to provide the
additional supervision and oversight required in challenging economic
times and to ensure that we maintain a staff with the skills necessary
to properly examine, oversee, and regulate the System.
mission of the farm credit administration
As directed by Congress, FCA's mission is to ensure a safe, sound,
and dependable source of credit and related services for agriculture
and rural America. The Agency accomplishes its mission in two important
ways. First, FCA protects the safety and soundness of the FCS by
examining and supervising all FCS institutions, including Farmer Mac,
and ensures that the institutions comply with applicable law and
regulations. Our examinations and oversight strategies focus on an
institution's financial condition and any material existing or
potential risk, as well as on the ability of its board and management
to direct its operations. We also evaluate each institution's
compliance with laws and regulations to serve all eligible borrowers,
including young, beginning, and small farmers and ranchers. If a System
institution violates a law or regulation or operates in an unsafe or
unsound manner, we use our supervisory and enforcement authorities to
ensure appropriate corrective action. Second, FCA develops policies and
regulations that govern how System institutions conduct their business
and interact with customers. FCA's policy and regulation development
focuses on protecting System safety and soundness; implementing the
Farm Credit Act; providing minimum requirements for lending, related
services, investments, capital, and mission; and ensuring adequate
financial disclosure and governance. The policy development program
includes approval of corporate charter changes, System debt issuance,
and other financial and operational matters.
examination programs for fcs banks and associations
The Agency's highest priority is to maintain appropriate risk-based
oversight and examination programs. With changes in the System and
human capital challenges within our Agency (pending retirements, normal
attrition of staff, and the ever-increasing need for more sophisticated
skills in the financial sector), we have undertaken a number of
initiatives to enhance our skills and expertise in key examination
functions. On a national level, we actively monitor risks that may
affect groups of System institutions or the entire System, including
risks that may arise from the agricultural, financial, and economic
environment in which the System institutions operate.
The scope and frequency of each examination is based on our
assessment of an institution's internal controls and the ability of its
board and management to manage risks. FCS institutions are required to
have prudent loan underwriting and loan administration processes, to
maintain adequate asset-liability management, to establish high
standards for governance, and to issue transparent shareholder
disclosures. Furthermore, we also are requiring institutions to
complete stress tests to determine their ability to withstand increased
risk and to develop appropriate contingency plans. The frequency and
depth of our examinations may vary, but each institution is provided a
summary of our activities and a report on its overall condition at
least every 18 months. Most issues are resolved through corrective
actions established in the Report of Examination or other
communication. In certain cases, FCA will use its enforcement powers to
effect changes in the institution's policies and practices to correct
unsafe or unsound conditions or violations of law or regulations.
We evaluate each institution's risk profile on a regular basis. The
Financial Institution Rating System (FIRS) is the primary risk
categorization and rating tool used by examiners to indicate the safety
and soundness of an institution. FIRS ratings range from one for a
sound institution to five for an institution that is likely to fail. As
of December 31, 2009, FIRS ratings as a whole continued to reflect the
sound financial condition of the FCS, although some individual
institutions are showing stress from conditions in agriculture and the
general economy.
As shown in the preceding chart, FIRS ratings were downgraded in
several institutions in 2009, continuing a declining trend over recent
years. In addition, at December 31, 2009, two FCS institutions were
under a formal enforcement action and two others were placed under
enforcement actions shortly after the first of the year. There are no
FCS institutions in conservatorship or receivership. As a result of
declining ratings, we have increased supervisory oversight at a number
of institutions and dedicated additional resources in particular to
those 17 institutions rated 3 or worse. Although these 17 institutions
represent only 4 percent of System assets and do not threaten the
System's consolidated performance, they require significantly greater
Agency resources to oversee. Overall the System remains financially
strong and adequately capitalized. Additionally, the FCS does not pose
material risk to investors in FCS debt, to the Farm Credit System
Insurance Corporation, or to FCS institution stockholders.
regulatory and corporate activities
Regulatory Activities.--Congress has given the FCA Board statutory
authority to establish policy, prescribe regulations, and issue other
guidance to ensure that FCS institutions comply with the law and
operate in a safe and sound manner. The Agency's regulatory philosophy
focuses our efforts on developing balanced, flexible, and legally sound
regulations. Some of the Agency's current regulatory and policy
projects include the following:
--Enhancing our risk-based capital adequacy framework for the FCS to
more closely align it with that of the Federal banking agencies
and the Basel II standardized approach.
--Revising lending and leasing-limit regulations to ensure that FCS
institutions maintain effective policies to measure and manage
exposure to single counterparties, industries, and market
segments, and to large complex loans.
--Reviewing regulations and policies on loan pricing, terms, and
conditions to ensure that System practices and procedures are
safe and sound and reflect sensitivity to market conditions.
--Developing regulations with the Federal banking agencies to
implement the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage
Licensing Act of 2008.
--Revising regulations to enhance System disclosures of senior
officer compensation and supplemental benefit programs and
issuing guidance for System compensation policies and best
practices.
--Strengthening investment-management and liquidity regulations to
ensure prudent practices are in place for the safe and sound
management of FCS investment portfolios.
Corporate Activities.--While FCS institutions have declined in
number over the years, their complexity has increased, which has
resulted in greater demands on both examination staff resources and
expertise. Generally, these mergers have resulted in larger, more cost-
efficient, and better capitalized institutions with a broad,
diversified asset base, both by geography and commodity. As of January
1, 2010, the System had 88 direct-lender associations, five banks, five
service corporations, and two special-purpose entities. Thus far in
fiscal year 2010, we have received and approved six restructuring
applications.
condition of the fcs
Agricultural economic conditions and the System's operating
environment continue to be unsettled. In February 2010, USDA forecast a
7.8 percent increase in net cash farm income for 2010 largely because
of an approximate 10 percent increase in cash receipts from livestock
and related products. Improved demand for livestock and dairy products,
combined with lower production, has improved prices and profitability
in these sectors. However, many of these producers remain financially
vulnerable because of a substantial reduction in equity over the past
couple years. Also, the USDA report forecast weakening in other
sectors. Profit margins for some crop producers could be lower in 2010
since commodity prices are generally lower than a year ago and input
prices are higher. Crop cash receipts are expected to decline about 4
percent. Profitability in the ethanol industry improved in the fall of
last year although ample ethanol supplies pressured margins in early
2010. Uncertainty has increased in the global economy in part because
of fiscal difficulties in several European countries and elevated
unemployment rates in the United States. This uncertainty will likely
lead to a somewhat tepid economic recovery and to a challenging
operating environment for the FCS in 2010.
Despite a very challenging year affecting the credit markets, the
System's overall condition and performance remained sound in 2009. The
System is well positioned to withstand the continuing challenges coming
from the general economy and stress in some sectors of the agricultural
economy. Total capital increased to $30.0 billion at December 31, 2009,
up from $27.1 billion a year earlier. Also, more than 82 percent of
total capital is in the form of earned surplus, the most stable form of
capital. The ratio of total capital to total assets increased to 13.9
percent at year-end 2009, compared with 12.7 percent the year before as
asset growth slowed considerably and the System continued to grow its
capital base.
Gross loans grew by a modest 2.1 percent in 2009, compared with
double-digit growth for several years. System borrowers were negatively
impacted by the overall stress in the general economy and certain
sectors of the agricultural economy. Credit quality declined but
remained satisfactory overall. Nonperforming loans increased by $1.1
billion to $3.5 billion as of December 31, 2009, and represented 11.8
percent of total capital at the end of 2009, up from 8.9 percent at the
end of 2008.
In 2009, the System earned $2.9 billion, a 2.2 percent decrease
from 2008. The return on assets remained at the very favorable level of
1.33 percent. The System's liquidity position equaled 178 days at
December 31, 2009, essentially unchanged from a year earlier and well
in excess of the 90-day regulatory minimum.
Further strengthening the System's financial condition is the Farm
Credit Insurance Fund (Insurance Fund), which has grown to more than
$3.2 billion. The Insurance Fund protects investors in Systemwide
consolidated debt obligations. The Farm Credit System Insurance
Corporation administers the Insurance Fund.
The economic and financial market turmoil in 2008 dissipated
somewhat in 2009, and certain sectors of the capital markets began to
function more normally. This helped the System to maintain its overall
financial strength, serve its mission, and build the Insurance Fund in
2009. Even though the System is a Government-sponsored enterprise (GSE)
with solid financial performance, not all of the liquidity has returned
to the financial markets. Investor demand for longer-term Systemwide
debt securities, particularly those with maturities over 5 years,
remained moderate, and long-term funding costs, while declining,
remained volatile. Government actions to stabilize the financial
markets and funding for other GSEs have provided some ancillary benefit
to System funding, which helped support solid System earnings
performance in 2009. Also, the System has enhanced its domestic
marketing and internal liquidity reserve requirements. For 2010, the
System expects debt markets to remain accessible.
federal agricultural mortgage corporation
Congress established Farmer Mac in 1988 to provide secondary market
arrangements for agricultural mortgage and rural home loans. Farmer Mac
creates and guarantees securities and other secondary market products
that are backed by mortgages on farms and rural homes. The 2008 Farm
Bill expanded Farmer Mac's program authorities by allowing it to
purchase and guarantee securities backed by eligible rural utility
loans made by cooperative lenders. Through a separate office required
by statute (Office of Secondary Market Oversight), the Agency examines,
regulates, and monitors Farmer Mac's operations.
Like the FCS, Farmer Mac is a GSE devoted to agriculture and rural
America. Farmer Mac is not subject to any intra-System agreements or
the joint and several liability of the FCS banks. Also, the Insurance
Fund does not back Farmer Mac's securities. However, by statute, in
extreme circumstances Farmer Mac may issue obligations to the U.S.
Treasury Department, not to exceed $1.5 billion, to fulfill the
guarantee obligations of Farmer Mac Guaranteed Securities.
Farmer Mac made significant financial progress during 2009 compared
with 2008. Net income for the year ending December 31, 2009, was $82.3
million, compared with a net loss to common stockholders of $154.1
million in 2008. At year-end 2009, capital surplus had grown to $120.2
million, up significantly from $13 million as of December 31, 2008. The
total portfolio of loans, guarantees, and commitments grew to $10.7
billion. Farmer Mac continues to have access to the debt markets to
fund its program assets.
In January of 2010, Farmer Mac raised $250 million in capital from
a private offering of shares of noncumulative perpetual preferred stock
of Farmer Mac II LLC, a recently formed operating subsidiary in which
Farmer Mac owns all of the common equity. Farmer Mac used the proceeds
to repurchase and retire $150 million of Farmer Mac's outstanding
Series B preferred stock, with additional proceeds available for other
corporate purposes. The new preferred stock has a lower net effective
cost than the recently retired capital and will improve Farmer Mac's
ability to generate new capital through earnings.
Farmer Mac's program loan portfolio shows stress in certain
subsectors such as ethanol; however, risk in the portfolio remains
manageable. Improvements related to the ethanol industry reduced the
nonperforming loan rate to 1.41 percent at December 31, 2009, compared
with 1.61 percent at December 31, 2008. Loans more than 90 days
delinquent decreased from 1.35 percent at December 31, 2008, to 1.13
percent at December 31, 2009.
Regulatory activity for 2010 includes plans to issue an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to consider modifying regulations
governing nonprogram investments and liquidity at Farmer Mac.
Additionally, FCA plans to finalize a rule this year governing the
Risk-Based Capital Stress Test that would update the model to address
Farmer Mac's new rural utility financing authority and certain other
technical changes in parts of the stress test.
conclusion
We at FCA remain vigilant in our efforts to ensure that the Farm
Credit System and Farmer Mac remain financially sound and focused on
serving agriculture and rural America. It is our intent to stay within
the constraints of our fiscal year 2011 budget as presented, and we
continue our efforts to be good stewards of the resources entrusted to
us. While we are proud of our record and accomplishments, I assure you
that the Agency will continue its commitment to excellence,
effectiveness, and cost efficiency and will remain focused on our
mission of ensuring a safe, sound, and dependable source of credit for
agriculture and rural America. This concludes my statement. On behalf
of my colleagues on the FCA Board and at the Agency, I thank you for
the opportunity to share this information.
______
Prepared Statement of FasterCures/The Center for Accelerating Medical
Solutions
Chairman Kohl, Senator Brownback, and members of the subcommittee,
on behalf of FasterCures I am writing to thank you for your continued
support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the past
several appropriation cycles and to urge you to once again authorize an
increase in the fiscal year 2011 budget for this critical agency.
FasterCures is a nonprofit think tank and center of the Milken
Institute that works across sectors and diseases to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of the medical research enterprise, and we
view improvements at FDA as key to accelerating progress in disease
research.
Together with the Alliance for a Stronger FDA, of which we are a
member, FasterCures requests that the budget authority appropriation
for the FDA in fiscal year 2011 be increased to $2.857 billion. This
request is exclusive of user fees. It represents a $495 million
increase over the fiscal year 2010 budget and a $341 million increase
over the President's request for fiscal year 2011. This increase would
ensure that the FDA could not only adequately sustain its existing
activities at their current levels, but also continue to meet its
increasingly robust set of public health and safety responsibilities
without compromising its scientific base.
Regulatory science is the backbone that supports all other FDA
activities. It must be strengthened to provide better tools, standards
and pathways to evaluate products under development and help patients
benefit from biomedical advances.
--In recent years, U.S. investments in research have generated a
tremendous amount of knowledge about the relationship between
molecular information and human health. Yet the development of
new therapies has declined, and the cost to develop them has
increased.
--We need 21st century science to support the evaluation of 21st
century medical products.
--Improvements in regulatory science will support better assessment
of drug and device safety, and create efficiencies in the
development process.
Deficiencies in capital--human, scientific and financial--are
creating a widening gap between the microscope and the marketplace, and
hindering the FDA's ability to achieve its mission.
--Staffing levels from the 2010 appropriation have only just been
restored to the previous high level achieved in 1994.
--Increasing internationalization, scientific complexity and drug
development costs add mounting pressure on the Agency.
--It takes about 15 years, on average, to take a promising
scientific discovery from the research lab through the
development, testing and regulatory review approval
process, and get it into the hands of patients.
--For the more than 100 million Americans who suffer from cancer,
Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, heart
disease and others for which there are no cures--and in
many cases, few meaningful treatment options--this is
simply too long to wait.
Challenges are growing, while capacity is shrinking.
--While new responsibilities continue to be added, the FDA's base is
eroding.
--CDRH staff, including its field force, has decreased in recent
years, while scientific discovery continues to move at a rapid
pace.
--Generic drug submissions outpace the capacity to review them.
A consistent multi-year funding approach is essential.
--The Institute of Medicine, U.S. Government Accountability Office,
and FDA Science Board have highlighted deficiencies in the
FDA's ability to carry out its responsibilities, noting
resource limitations.
--The Science Board report (December 2007) is particularly clear that
a fundamental source of problems is chronic under-funding.
--No systemic improvement is likely without resources to increase
food science and inspection capacity, further fund drug and
device approvals and safety monitoring, and upgrade mission-
critical information technology systems.
Compared with other public health agencies, the FDA's budget is
still relatively small, and out of alignment with its growing
responsibilities.
--The FDA is responsible for regulating products that represent one-
quarter of all consumer spending.
--Twenty-five years ago, the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) were roughly the same size, but since that
time, the CDC's compound annual growth rate has grown to nearly
double that of FDA.
--With over 80 percent of its budget going to staff and operational
costs--including salary and benefits for approximately 10,000
employees as well as rent, supplies, telecommunications, etc.--
at the current rate of growth, the Agency will not be able to
sustain, much less grow, its current scope.
--FDA needs excellent staff with cutting edge scientific expertise,
but it also needs strong, selective scientific research
programs that are appropriately mission-driven in all of the
areas of FDA responsibility (e.g. generic biologic review,
adverse event tracking, drug import field exams, foreign
manufacturing facility review, etc.)
Increasing the FDA's budget in fiscal year 2011 will strengthen its
ability to operate a modern, scientifically based regulatory program.
--The FDA must be strong enough to accept the baton of innovation
from the research community in order to ensure that patients
are able to benefit from advances in biomedical and laboratory
science.
We commend Dr. Hamburg and the Agency for their commitment to
excellence and for recognizing the valuable role of regulatory science
in creating new pathways and standards for product development and
approval.
Attached is a chart that breaks down our budget request by
function, comparing it to both the President's request and previous
year's budgets.
Thank you very much for your consideration and for the opportunity
to submit this testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S FISCAL YEAR 2011 REQUEST FOR THE FDA COMPARED TO THE ALLIANCE FOR A STRONGER FDA'S FISCAL YEAR 2011 REQUEST (WITH FURTHER COMPARISON
TO FISCAL YEARS 2008, 2009 AND 2010)
[Budget Authority Appropriations, does not include user fees]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2008 Fiscal year 2009 Fiscal year 2010 Fiscal year 2011 Fiscal year 2011
Function Note: budget authority only, by center actual (December final (March final (October alliance President's
2007) 2009) 2009) request request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food.......................................................... $510 million $649 million $784 million $955 million $856 million
Human Drugs................................................... 353 million 413 million 465 million 580 million 484 million
Biologics..................................................... 155 million 183 million 206 million 255 million 215 million
Animal Drugs/Feed............................................. 97 million 116 million 135 million 165 million 141 million
Devices & Radiological Health................................. 238 million 280 million 315 million 385 million 326 million
Natl. Ctr. for Toxicological Research......................... 44 million 52 million 59 million 72 million 61 million
HQ, Office of Commissioner and Other.......................... 97 million 121 million 144 million 183 million 162 million
Rent & Facilities Cost........................................ 220 million 223 million 237 million 250 million 259 million
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, Salaries and Expenses......................... 1.714 billion 2.039 billion 2.346 billion 2.845 billion 2.504 billion
(+$145 million (+$325 million (+$307 million
over fiscal year over fiscal year over fiscal year
2007) 2008) 2009)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building and Facilities Repair................................ 8 million 16 million 16 million 12 million 12 million
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ALL Budget Authority Appropriations (no user 1.722 billion 2.055 billion 2.362 billion 2.857 billion 2.516 billion
fees).................................................. (Proposes +$495 (Proposes $154
million over million over
fiscal year fiscal year
2010) 2010)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because OMB includes new and proposed user fees in their totals, these numbers vary considerably from those being discussed by the Administration and
reported by many sources.
Subsequently, the Administration amended its request to ask for an additional $8 million for earmarks within the food program. This is reflected in the
chart, but may not be in all budget descriptions.
______
Prepared Statement of Feeding America
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee for the
opportunity to submit written testimony on the President's fiscal year
2011 budget for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). As president
and CEO of Feeding America, I am pleased to be able to share with you
the needs and interests of the more than 37 million people served by
our network of 200 food banks and more than 62,000 local feeding
agencies. I also want to thank you and your colleagues for the
continuing and generous support this subcommittee has always provided
for nutrition programs and for your leadership in the fight to end
hunger in this Nation.
As you know, our network and those we serve are heavily reliant on
the programs administered by the Food and Nutrition Service of USDA. We
greatly appreciate the difficult challenges this agency takes on in
administering our Nation's domestic nutrition assistance programs. Over
the years we have formed a successful partnership with FNS and its
regional offices. Federal commodity donation programs like The
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) and the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) make it possible for our network to
distribute millions of pounds of nutritious foods to the food pantries,
shelters, soup kitchens, and after school programs (like Kids Cafes)
that we operate throughout the country. This partnership and our close
working relationship with FNS also has helped our network engage in
promoting and helping hungry people access other nutrition programs,
like SNAP, Child Nutrition, and WIC.
If we are ever going to end hunger in this country we all must
continue to work together so that the 49 million people in our Nation
who are defined by USDA as ``Food Insecure'' are able to fully access
the critically important tools provided by Federal nutrition programs.
tefap and commodity distribution programs
Feeding America food banks are the largest user of commodities
provided through The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). This
program provides a consistent source of food that allows many feeding
agencies to keep their doors open, and as noted below, helps us
leverage private, charitable donations to significantly expand the
amount of food and resources we distribute through our food bank
network
The Feeding America food bank network depends on USDA commodities
to ensure a guaranteed supply of foods to distribute to our pantries,
shelters, soup kitchens and community feeding programs. In fiscal year
2009, a total of $2.2 billion worth of food was distributed through our
food banks and local agencies. The value of TEFAP and CSFP commodities
accounted for $436 million of this amount.
TEFAP Commodities.--With the generous support of this Congress in
enacting the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), funding for
TEFAP commodities was increased by $150 million for fiscal year 2009
and fiscal year 2010. Of this amount States could use $50 million for
distribution grants. Unfortunately, the additional commodities bought
with the ARRA funding will run out by the end of March, 2010. This is
happening at a time when the numbers of people coming to our agencies
for food assistance (already at record levels) continues to grow, and
unemployment remains high. The rising demand, together with a
significant decline in available bonus commodities for the program and
the end of ARRA commodities, is seriously depleting our food
inventories, and many of our feeding agencies soon may be facing empty
shelves. We estimate that an additional $200 million in TEFAP commodity
assistance is needed to continue serving the growing numbers of people
who are seeking food assistance through emergency feeding agencies.
Feeding America recommends that an additional $200 million be added
in emergency funding for TEFAP commodities to ensure that emergency
feeding programs can continue to serve the growing numbers of hungry
Americans coming to them for help.
Safe Storage and Distribution of Commodities.--As in past years,
the Administration budget proposal for TEFAP commodity distribution
grants requests the same amount ($50 million) to help State and local
agencies with the costs of storing, transporting and distributing TEFAP
commodities. Funding to protect the food commodities and transport and
distribute them is critically important, especially now that many
States are facing budget crises that are challenging their ability to
fund this essential work. It has been very difficult to cover these
costs as demand has increased, and we are hopeful that the subcommittee
will find more funding to help make sure the food we have can be safely
stored, transported and distributed.
Feeding America recommends that the Committee fully fund the TEFAP
grant program for commodity distribution at the fully authorized level
of $100 million.
TEFAP Infrastructure Grants.--The Administration budget request
proposes to zero out the $6 million in funding for TEFAP infrastructure
grants that was approved by this Committee for fiscal year 2010. These
grants, yet to be awarded by the Administration for fiscal year 2010,
are critically important to help food banks with the costs of
maintaining and improving their facilities and equipment and ensuring
safe food storage and handling. Many of our food banks, particularly
those located in rural areas are struggling to update their facilities
and equipment. Efforts to improve the amount of fresh fruits and
vegetables distributed also are hindered by outdated refrigeration and
storage units. Moreover, the poor economy in many regions is
handicapping efforts to raise sufficient private funding for capitol
improvement projects.
We recommend that the USDA release the Infrastructure grant funding
appropriated by the Committee for fiscal year 2010 as quickly as
possible, and that the Committee continue to fund this extremely
important program to our network.
Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The Administration budget
request recommends $176.8 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program. More than one-third of our food banks operate CSFPs in States
approved for this program. We are pleased that your Committee has long-
supported the CSFP, which is critically important to so many needy
elderly and young mothers and children. The addition of new States to
this program last year has opened the way for many more hungry people
to receive the nourishment they need. It is our hope that caseloads in
States with programs can be increased and that over time more States
and localities will be able to offer CSFPs. The decline in bonus
commodities available to this and other nutrition programs is
worrisome, and we hope that this does not impede progress in reaching
the many people, especially seniors, who require the nutritious
supplemental food packages provided by the CSFP.
We support the Administration proposal for CSFP funding for fiscal
year 2011 and the position of our colleagues in the national CSFP
Association.
child nutrition
Recognizing the many gaps in our child nutrition programs, our food
banks are heavily engaged in promoting and feeding children through
innovative child nutrition programs. Along with offering nutritious
foods to over 14 million children through our food pantries, shelters
and soup kitchens, our food banks operate more than 1,600 Kids Cafes
serving more than 115,000 children each year. These after school
programs are able to operate with support from the Child and Adult Care
Food program and private donations. They are run in a wide variety of
local settings like Boys and Girls clubs, churches, community centers,
and schools. Kids Cafe programs had their origin in Savannah, Georgia,
where in 1989 two young brothers were found late one night searching
for something to eat in a housing project community kitchen.
More recently, our food banks have taken on the issue of gaps in
our child nutrition programs by initiating weekend feeding programs for
low income children. These programs, commonly known as BackPack
programs, operate in partnership with local schools and community
agencies and provide child-friendly, non-perishable, nutritious foods
for children to take home on the last day before a weekend or school
holiday. BackPack programs originated in Little Rock, Arkansas after a
school nurse contacted the local food bank to ask for help when she
noticed that many children were coming to her on Mondays complaining of
stomach aches and dizziness. There now are more than 140 Feeding
America members and partner organizations operating 3,600 BackPack
programs that serve more than 190,000 children.
The Administration fiscal year 2011 budget for Child Nutrition
Programs would maintain current services for all of the current
programs. More importantly it proposes to increase funding for child
nutrition programs by $1 billion annually (or $10 billion over 10
years) to make the needed changes to these programs to help achieve the
President's goal of ending childhood hunger by 2015. Feeding America
fully supports the President's ambitious and achievable goal and budget
proposal.
Child Nutrition programs are the foundation upon which to build a
Nation where all of our children have access to the nutritious foods
essential to help them learn and thrive and lead healthy and productive
lives. It is critically important that comprehensive child nutrition
reauthorization legislation be enacted this year, and that enough
funding be provided to make this happen.
Too many low-income children in this country are unable to access
child nutrition programs when they need them. For example, only 2.2
million children participate in the Summer Food Service Program, which
is targeted to children living in low-income areas. This compares to
some 19 million low-income children receiving free and reduced price
school lunches during the school year. Summer food and child care
feeding programs are handicapped by excessive sponsor requirements,
proscriptive eligibility rules and administrative and paperwork burdens
that limit access to these programs and reduce cost efficiencies. At a
time when State and local governments are struggling with budget
cutbacks, these administrative barriers hinder sponsorship of Federal
nutrition programs that could help millions of children without adding
fiscal burdens to States and communities.
Feeding America recommends that changes to child nutrition programs
be accomplished this year to expand their quality and reach to all
children, and that these changes fill the gaps in current services. Our
priorities call for (1) expanding the reach and quality of foods for
hungry children in schools, child care, After school and summer sites;
(2) providing start-up funding and outreach to increase the number of
Summer Food Service programs in unserved and underserved areas; (3)
funding innovative programs, like the BackPack Program, to help hungry
children when they do not have access to nutrition programs, and (4)
better coordinating programs and streamlining and simplifying rules
that prevent or hinder the operation of child nutrition programs. [See
attachment at the end for a more detailed list of Feeding America
priorities.]
snap outreach and application assistance
Our food banks are working closely with FNS staff at the Federal,
State and local level to conduct SNAP outreach. As you know, too many
people who are eligible for SNAP benefits are not receiving them. Data
shows that about one-third of those who are eligible for SNAP do not
participate in this program. There are many reasons for this, and high
among them are long and complicated application forms and processes.
Our food banks are committed to addressing this problem by working with
local Federal, State and local SNAP agencies to offer on-site
application assistance to clients wading through the difficult and
time-consuming process of qualifying for these critically important
benefits.
While this is not part of a specific Administration budget request
we hope that this partnership will continue and be expanded through
waivers and other methods to help ensure that all of those who are
eligible for SNAP can qualify and receive these vitally important
benefits.
concluding remarks
Feeding America is profoundly aware of the current economic crisis
and the challenges this presents to our legislators and those they
represent. Our Nation's nutrition programs provide the foundation upon
which to build a future where all of Americans have access to
nutritious foods that will help them live healthy and productive lives.
As they have so often in the past when our Nation faced war, a Great
Depression, and social and economic upheavals, Federal nutrition
programs offer the way to effectively respond to our current economic
crisis and to the needs of those struggling to nourish themselves and
their families.
Millions in this country are struggling to keep their jobs, homes,
and food on the table. Food Banks and local feeding agencies often are
the first to see the devastated faces of those who never imagined that
they would be seeking help at a food pantry, shelter, or soup kitchen.
The charitable sector has truly stepped up to try and serve the growing
numbers of those in this Nation who are hungry. But, as we learned in
the Great Depression and are reminded of in the current Great
Recession, charity alone cannot meet the need.
The government and charitable sector must work together and Federal
nutrition programs must be the solid foundation upon which to build the
structure that finally succeeds in ending the scourge of hunger in this
Nation. No one in this country should have to wonder where their next
meal will come from, or how they will afford to buy nutritious foods
for their families.
Thank you so much for allowing me to present this written
testimony. I hope you will not hesitate to contact me or my colleagues
in our Washington office if we can be of assistance in helping you and
the President finally put an end to hunger among children and for all
of those living in out great Nation.
Attachment
child nutrition priorities
Feeding America food banks play a critical role in directly
supporting and advocating for child nutrition. In 2009, our food bank
network provided food to 13.9 million children, or one out of every
five of all children in the United States. As the Congress prepares to
reauthorize and strengthen these child nutrition programs, our food
banks are actively engaged in developing and promoting legislative
changes that will move the Nation forward in the crusade to end
childhood hunger in America. President Obama's commitment to achieving
this goal by the year 2015 is running behind schedule. The Congress
must move quickly to complete action on a child nutrition bill that
makes a substantial investment of no less than the Administration
request to ensure that all of our children have access to a safe,
nutritious, and healthy diet.
Our child nutrition legislative priorities will: (1) strengthen the
quality and efficiency of all child nutrition programs; (2) fill the
gaps in food service for millions of low-income children, and (3) offer
creative ideas for new and innovative approaches to ending childhood
hunger.
High on our priority list are proposals to reach more needy
children through the Summer Food Service and Child and Adult Care Food
Programs (SFSP & CACFP). Too many low-income children receiving free or
reduced-price school lunches during the school year (some 19 million)
do not have access to the SFSP, which reaches only 2.2 million
children. Similarly, because of the limited number of after-school
programs currently being operated through CACFP, too many low-income
children find themselves without access to nourishing food after the
school day ends. Moreover, as the economy worsens, many low-income
children are going hungry during weekends and school holidays. The
Feeding America food banks operating summer food and afterschool
programs, the Kids Cafe program, and weekend food box (or BackPack)
programs strongly urge the Congress to make the following program
improvements.
Afterschool and Child Care Nutrition (Child and Adult Care Food
Program)
Expand supper funding for At-Risk After-School Programs beyond the
current 14 States and localities (CT, DC, DE, IL, MD, MI, MO, NV, NY,
OR, PA, VT, WI, and WV) to all 50 States.
Reduce the area eligibility threshold for At-Risk After-School
Programs from 50 percent of children eligible for free or reduced-price
school meals down to 40 percent.
Provide child care centers and home day cares with the option of
providing a third meal.
Provide funding for outreach to recruit new sponsors to participate
in CACFP.
Increase funding for CACFP expansion grants.
Require the publication of a CACFP manual to help applicants and
program sponsors.
Weekend Nutrition (The BackPack Program)
Create a Pilot Program to fund a series of projects to explore
various methods for providing food to low-income children on weekends
and extended school holidays. Require that BackPack Programs be
included as a model for one or more of the pilots and include funding
for a USDA evaluation.
Provide authority for schools to designate Fruit and Vegetable
Program purchases for distribution through Weekend box or BackPack
Programs.
Summer Nutrition (The Summer Food Service Program; Rural Summer
Initiatives)
Reduce the area eligibility threshold for SFSP from areas where 50
percent of children are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals
to areas where 40 percent are eligible.
Expand the California SFSP pilot, which authorized use of the SFSP
program year round, to more or all States, with the provision that
meals may be served afterschool year round to reduce need for separate
program applications and criteria for summer and CACFP afterschool
programs.
Increase the percentage of second meals that sponsors may be
reimbursed for to recognize the variable nature of attendance in the
summer and the need to reduce food waste.
Provide outreach funding to get new sponsors/sites/participants
into the SFSP program by, among other things, providing funding for
USDA and/or States to develop and implement aggressive outreach
programs to get more children into summer food programs, and offering
Start-up grants for new SFSP sponsors to encourage them to begin new
programs
Eliminate the restrictions on non-profit sponsors on the number of
operating sites and participants they may serve.
Create a series of pilot programs to explore innovative methods of
reaching more children through the SFSP in underserved areas. [NOTE:
Fiscal year 2010 appropriations provided $85 million for USDA to test
innovative methods for reaching children in the summer.] Ideas we
recommend include:
--Funding for mobile meal programs.
--Creation of a commodity box program pilot, targeted to children in
rural areas that are not served through traditional congregate
meal programs. Operated through schools, government, or non-
profit agencies using school meals data to identify need, with
option of picking up a box of items containing the equivalent
to meals received through the SFSP.
In-School Nutrition (National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast
Program)
Expand the School Breakfast Program to more schools and more
children by increasing school options and incentives for providing
breakfasts at schools; including in-classroom breakfast options and
allowing universal school breakfasts in targeted schools with high
percentages of low-income students.
Expand the ``free'' meal category for school meals from 130 percent
to 185 percent of poverty, resulting in the elimination of the
``reduced price'' meal category.
Improve the nutritional quality of meals served in schools and of
foods available on the school campus.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children
(WIC)
Ensure adequate funding to serve the growing caseload of women,
infants, and children receiving WIC food packages and participating in
the accompanying nutrition services.
Cross-Program Child Nutrition Initiatives
Increase base reimbursement rates for all child nutrition programs
(school meals, CACFP, SFSP, etc.) to cover the higher meal costs due to
inflation and improved nutritional quality.
Provide for more frequent indexing of reimbursement rates for all
child nutrition programs. For example, provide semi-annual indexing and
round up rates (currently rounded down).
______
Prepared Statement of Florida State University (FSU)
Florida State University is requesting $5,000,000 in fiscal year
2011 for the Risk Reduction for Agricultural Crops Program from the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).
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 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 $200
million this past year in sponsored 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, Rhodes and Goldwater Scholars, as well as students with
superior creative talent. Since 2005, FSU students have won more than
30 nationally competitive scholarships and fellowships including 3
Rhodes Scholarships, 2 Truman Scholarships, Goldwater, and 18 Fulbright
Fellowships.
At Florida State University, we are very proud of our successes as
well as our emerging reputation as one of the Nation's top public
research universities. Our new President, Dr. Eric Barron, will lead
FSU to new heights during his tenure.
Mr. Chairman, I bring two items of interest to you today. The first
is a project vital to many of our Nation's farmers and the second is
our strong support for the President's fiscal year 2011 budget requests
for two programs within the USDA--the Agriculture and Food Initiative
and the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program. First, let me
tell you about our project.
Droughts in the southeastern U.S. have had significant impacts on
the water resources. The Federal Government can reduce these risks by
using modern technologies such as climate models, to predict future
climate, and decision-support tools to help mitigate some uncertainties
and provide adaptation strategies for the agricultural and
environmental sectors. The Southeast Climate Consortium (SECC), which
includes three Florida universities: Florida State University,
University of Florida, University of Miami. The SECC 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 and climate change for
agricultural crops, forests, and water resources in the southeastern
USA.
The SECC is a model for employing regional climate forecasts for
agricultural purposes; because of its success, USDA has considered
establishing other such regional activities throughout the United
States to coordinate regional research efforts. Examples of coordinated
research efforts have FSU leading efforts to provide climate forecasts
and risk reduction methodology. UF will translate this climate
information into risks and environmental impacts on agriculture and
will work with Extension to provide information to the agricultural
community. UM will provide economic modeling capacities. Research
efforts with other regional players in GA, AL, SC, and NC are
coordinated to provide an overall regional climate strategy. Together,
all university partners are developing new tools to manage climate
risks to water quality. These tools and applications have strong
support of extension in all these SE States.
The new tasks are to develop improved methods to forecast droughts
and other extreme climate events. These forecasts will be incorporated
into decision support systems to help agricultural, forest, and natural
resource managers to reduce risks of losses. We will develop new
partnerships and methods for incorporating climate forecasts into
agricultural and water policy decisions and continue the development of
a decision support system to provide seasonal and multi-year
projections for agricultural water use. Lastly, we will initiate
research to determine risks and appropriate agricultural responses to
longer term trends in climate.
Florida State University, on behalf of the Southeast Climate
Consortium, seeks $5.0 million in fiscal year 2011 for this project.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to express strong support for the
President's fiscal year 2011 budget requests for two programs within
the USDA.
The Agriculture and Food Initiative (AFRI) is seeking $428.845
million to enhance funding levels for several areas critical to our
Nation's continued progress. These areas include bioenergy, global
climate change, global food security, nutrition and health, and the
agricultural workforce. Two areas within AFRI that we feel strongly
about are providing avenues to address changes in our climate related
to agriculture and programs related to nutrition and nutrition
education. A second programmatic area within USDA is the Expanded Food
and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP). The President has requested
$68.070 million for fiscal year 2011, the same level appropriated in
fiscal year 2010. We understand the difficult choices that the
President and your Committee must make in this difficult budget climate
and, for that reason, we support level funding for this important
program for fiscal year 2011. Our faculty members at FSU are very
involved in both these important areas, and we respectfully request
that the Committee endeavor to find funding to help move these
important endeavors forward in fiscal year 2011.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your consideration of our project
request as well as the President's budget request for AFRI and EFNEP.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville,
Inc. (FAR-B)
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. In this request, we support $13 million of
increases proposed in the President's budget for the Beltsville
Agricultural Research Center. Also, we ask restoration of $111,000 of
decreases proposed for the U.S. National Arboretum, Washington, DC, and
$2,918,000 of decreases proposed for the Beltsville Agricultural
Research Center. These actions, if approved, would restore the
increases for the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center to $13
million.
Before turning to explanatory specifics, please allow us to note
for the record that during this calendar year the Beltsville
Agricultural Research Center will mark a great historical milestone, a
milestone to celebrate the many great and small accomplishments that
BARC research has contributed to the Nation's agricultural bounty and
to the overall march of scientific progress. A century has passed since
1910, the year research at Beltsville began with the assembly of a
dairy cattle herd for research purposes. The ensuing BARC story is by
all rights a great national story--a story of world-class
accomplishment. BARC Director Joseph Spence and his staff are planning
worthy events to commemorate the centennial year.
The Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville (FAR-B) is honored
to be both a participant in the centennial planning process and a
contributor to coming events. We would be pleased, Mr. Chairman, to
answer any questions, to collect any information or documents the
subcommittee might wish regarding the centennial.
We now turn to the specifics of our testimony for fiscal year 2011.
Most fiscal year 2011 increases in the President's budget for BARC
appeared (sometimes under slightly different headings) in our testimony
for fiscal years 2009 or 2010. We strongly support all the proposed
increases.
Animal Breeding and Protection, $1,500,000.--The promise of
understanding the genome of plants and animals is being fully exploited
at Beltsville. In groundbreaking research conducted here, scientists
have been able to quickly and accurately identify dairy bulls that will
produce daughters that are the most efficient milk producers. Now a
simple test at birth can predict at twice the former accuracy and at a
cost of about $250 the potential of a bull to sire high producing cows.
Traditionally, bull prediction methods have required farmers to
maintain and study cows for several years, at a cost up to $50,000 per
bull. The potential for developing and expanding this breakout
technology is huge and at great savings to farmer and consumer alike.
Colony Collapse of Honey Bees, $500,000.--The loss of honey bees
has and will continue to have a major effect on American agriculture.
Crops such as almonds are entirely dependent on the honey bee for
pollination. Research conducted at Beltsville is regarded as the most
significant and effective at addressing the issue of colony collapse
disorder and the funds will make use of the recently reported DNA
sequence of nosema, a pathogen that is associated with colony collapse
disorder. BARC scientists determined the DNA sequence for nosema.
Crop Breeding and Protection, $1,250,000.--A number of crops of
great agronomic importance to the United States are at risk from
emerging diseases that can devastate crop yield. Research to identify
germplasm that is resistant to these emerging diseases is being
conducted at BARC. The research combines BARC's unique germplasm
resources with outstanding breeding research ability to develop
improved crop varieties with resistance to emerging diseases.
Food Safety, $1,500,000.--The Beltsville Area has established the
largest single food safety unit in ARS. This research unit will focus
on a number of issues, including safety of fruits and vegetables and
food safety issues related to organic agriculture. The ability exists
at BARC to raise crops and animals under farm conditions, and then to
process, store, and package the resulting products. The ability to
propose and test interventions that greatly reduce pathogen exposure in
foods, and ultimately in people, is a unique feature of the food safety
research program at BARC.
Global Climate Change, $800,000.--BARC has unique growth chambers
that can measure and observe plant growth at every stage or part from
root to stem, and under every conceivable atmospheric condition. BARC
is using these chambers to measure the effects of increasing
atmospheric CO2 and changes in environmental temperatures.
Studies are underway not only on agronomically important crops, but
also on invasive weeds. BARC research shows that environmental changes
may enhance the rapid growth of invasive plants, thus threatening to
exacerbate already costly problems for American agriculture.
Human Nutrition, $5,400,000.--Obesity negatively impacts the health
and productivity of the American public. Moreover, obesity comes with
greatly increased risk of chronic diseases that dramatically add to the
economic costs of healthcare. The Beltsville Human Nutrition Research
Center (BHNRC) is researching barriers and facilitators that may
discourage or encourage Americans from following recommended Dietary
Guidelines; that is, why adults and children from major U.S. racial/
ethnic groups may or may not follow dietary guidelines. A major
research emphasis is to prevent obesity through a better understanding
of why people make the food choices they do. This research also will
help USDA design and implement more effective food assistance programs.
Furthermore, this research will help to define the progress of efforts
to prevent obesity in children because it takes advantage of the unique
national food consumption survey ``What We Eat in America'', conducted
by BHNRC and is the Nation's nutrition monitoring effort.
Local Food Systems, $500,000.--BARC scientists are working with
farmers on Maryland's Eastern Shore to learn how to improve on-farm
conservation practices that will improve water quality in the
Chesapeake Bay. The research goals--targeting the entire range of
Eastern Shore farming practices--include reducing fertilizer and
pesticide usage. A central goal is to create agronomic and animal waste
management practices that will reduce fertilizer usage and control
pollution runoff. Biocontrol studies are searching out ways to minimize
the need for pesticides. Scientists also are using advanced remote
sensing and hydrological technologies to protect the health of the
Chesapeake watershed. Because BARC is a working farm and has
established collaborations with producers on the Eastern Shore, BARC is
an ideal place to study the utilization of farm-generated waste
products. Farm-generated waste products can be environmentally harmful,
have little or no value to the farmer, and be costly to dispose of.
Work at Beltsville has led to the effective development of technologies
and products that take waste by-products and convert them to valuable
new products. Examples include biofuels and plastics made without
petroleum.
Plant, Animal, and Microbial Collections, $1,250,000.--BARC
maintains and expands the Federal government's unique collections of
biological materials and organisms that are of utmost importance in
identifying pests and parasites in the United States and are critical
for preventing unwanted pests from entering the United States through
imports or by international travelers, as well as demonstrating that
our exports are safe. These unique, irreplaceable collections include
the invaluable reference collections of insects, nematodes, parasites,
and fungi, and the national Germplasm Resource Information Network.
These world-class collections and information systems attract leading
experts from around the world in efforts to globally control diseases
and pests. The continued availability of research in this general area
of systematics is essential for trade, for homeland security, and for
the protection of American agriculture.
Reduce World Hunger, $300,000.--This research will collect
phenotypic data and use genome sequence derived markers to characterize
germplasm for traits of importance in food animals. Of most
significance, this work will utilize BARC's Animal Improvements
Laboratory, which is a truly unique research operation that builds on
100 years of expertise at BARC.
Now we turn to proposed decreases, all listed as earmarks in the
President's budget. We recommend restoration of these funds.
Medicinal and Bioactive Crops, $111,000.--This funding is critical
to continue research on the beneficial bioactive components in plants
and herbs. These components have been shown at BARC to enhance human
health.
Biomedical Materials in Plants, $1,700,000.--Plants can be used as
factories to manufacture vaccines and other pharmaceuticals for animals
and humans. This research focuses on development of alternative crops
to produce these biomedical products.
Bioremediation Research, $111,000.--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.
Foundry Sand By-Products Utilization, $638,000.--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.
Potato Diseases, $61,000.--These funds are used for research
activities on genetic improvement of potato and reducing diseases of
potato. While a small amount of money, these funds are used to
supplement ongoing efforts in this important area.
Poultry Diseases, $408,000.--Coccidiosis, a parasitic poultry
disease, costs the industry almost $1 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.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes our statement. We again thank you for
the opportunity to present our testimony and for your interest and
support.
______
Prepared Statement of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)
The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) appreciates this
opportunity to speak in support of Federal efforts to prevent, detect
and respond to infectious diseases in the United States and abroad as
part of the fiscal year 2011 funding cycle. IDSA supports an overall
increase of $495 million for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for
fiscal year 2011. Within this overall increase, we support an
additional $20 million for FDA's antimicrobial resistance and
antibacterial drug review programs, which will allow FDA to more
aggressively address staffing problems within the Agency's division
with oversight over antibacterial human drug reviews to enable that
division to quicken its pace in developing critical guidance for
industry on antibacterial drug clinical trial designs; fund Critical
Path initiatives specific to antibacterial drug development; update
antibacterial drug and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST)
device susceptibility breakpoints for inclusion in product labeling;
and review the safety of antibacterial drug use in food animals. We
also support an increase of $13.25 million for FDA's new regulatory
science initiative and an increase of $3 million for the National
Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS).
IDSA represents more than 9,000 infectious diseases physicians and
scientists devoted to patient care, prevention, public health,
education and research. Our members care for patients of all ages with
serious infections, including meningitis, pneumonia, tuberculosis (TB),
resistant infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus (MRSA), Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Salmonella, and cancer
and transplant patients who have life-threatening infections caused by
unusual microorganisms, food poisoning, and HIV/AIDS, as well as
emerging infections like the 2009 H1N1 virus and severe acute
respiratory syndrome (SARS).
overall fda funding recommendation
The increases in FDA's appropriations over the past few years have
been critical to strengthening the Agency. Nonetheless, there remains
an extraordinarily large gap between FDA's responsibilities and its
resources. Every year, the Agency's job becomes more complex
scientifically and more difficult to perform. Moreover, new laws
affecting FDA recently have been enacted, further straining the FDA's
ability to meet the expectations of the Congress and the American
people. It is also important to note that FDA's appropriation is quite
small, especially when matched against its jurisdiction over one-
quarter of consumer spending, 80 percent of the food supply and all of
the drugs, biologics, medical devices, animal drugs, cosmetics and
dietary supplements used anywhere in the United States. FDA must also
deal with the food and medical products that are sourced from overseas.
IDSA is recommending a $495 million increase for FDA in fiscal year
2011. This is the amount we believe is needed to enable FDA to make
further progress in carrying out its existing responsibilities.
specific funding recommendations
Within this increased funding, IDSA supports a strengthening of
efforts which will support FDA's antimicrobial resistance programs and
antibacterial drug review efforts. Specifically, we support at least a
$20 million increase for FDA's activities in these areas in fiscal year
2011. We also support an increase in FDA funding for the new regulatory
science initiative and an increase for the National Antimicrobial
Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS).
the antibiotic pipeline: problems and solutions
Since antibiotics were first discovered and used in the 1940s to
save American soldiers during World War II, they have saved millions of
lives and eased patients' suffering. In fact, antibiotics often have
been referred to as ``miracle drugs,'' since patients only need to take
them for a few days to completely resolve most infections.
However, antibiotics also are unique among all medicines in two
very unfortunate ways. First, over time, these drugs lose their ability
to treat the diseases for which they were approved--due to antibiotic
resistance. And, second, the phenomenon of antibiotic resistance has
required that newly approved antibiotics be used sparingly so that we
can prolong their effectiveness against life-threatening infections.
These two issues, resistance and the resulting need for protective
antibiotic stewardship measures, have created very real clinical
challenges in physicians' ability to treat infectious diseases.
Unfortunately, they also have resulted in a market failure that has
caused most pharmaceutical companies to withdraw from antibiotic
research and development (R&D). The sad result--the antibiotic pipeline
is drying up, placing Americans and other people around the world at
serious risk.
A January 2009 IDSA report published in the journal Clinical
Infectious Diseases (CID) analyzes antibiotics in development and shows
the pipeline is bare, particularly for infections caused by a group of
bacteria known as the ESKAPE Pathogens (Enterococcus faecium,
Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii,
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacter species), so-called because
they effectively escape the effects of approved antibiotic drugs. Of
significance, these ESKAPE pathogens cause the majority of U.S.
healthcare-associated infections. A report released by the European
Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the European
Medicines Agency (EMA) in September 2009 confirms IDSA's assessment
finding only 15 antibacterial drugs in development with the potential
to offer a benefit over existing antibacterial drugs. Only five of
these antibiotics had progressed to clinical trials to confirm clinical
efficacy (Phase III or later).
The lack of new antibacterial drugs in development is deeply
troubling to health experts and has the potential to change the
practice of medicine as we know it. A number of advanced interventions
that we currently take for granted, e.g. surgery, cancer treatment,
transplantation and care of premature babies, may be impossible to
perform if we get to the point where effective antibacterial drugs are
no longer available. Our ability to care for patients with serious and
life-threatening infections already has been significantly diminished--
morbidity and mortality are on the rise.
In addition to market failure due to antibacterial resistance,
pharmaceutical companies often report that uncertainty caused by a lack
of clear FDA guidance on appropriate clinical trial designs is a
significant impediment to antibacterial R&D efforts. IDSA requests that
FDA funding be sufficiently increased to allow the Agency to quickly
provide regulatory certainty and to explore other incentives needed to
motivate major drug companies to become engaged again in antibacterial
R&D.
FDA has made some progress over the past several years in
publishing new clinical trial guidelines. However, clear clinical trial
design guidance is still urgently needed, including guidances for
community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, hospital-acquired bacterial
pneumonia, ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia, complicated skin
and skin structure infections and other serious infections. FDA must
have adequate funding to hire additional staff quickly to finalize
these guidances. Otherwise, more companies will leave this area of drug
development.
Moreover, IDSA strongly urges FDA to commission a study through the
Tufts Center (or some other similar entity) seeking a report on
strengths and weaknesses in the antibacterial and related diagnostics
R&D pipelines with a particular emphasis on products needed to treat,
detect, and prevent serious and life-threatening infections caused by
ESKAPE pathogens. The study also should provide recommendations as to
what combination of incentives, considering each phase of product
development, will work to spur greater R&D of such products among the
biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and diagnostics industries as well as
within academic settings.
support for regulatory science
IDSA is encouraged by the recent announcement of the initiative
between FDA and the National Institutes of Health designed to
accelerate the process from scientific breakthrough to the availability
of new, innovative medical therapies for patients. The initiative
involves two interrelated scientific disciplines: translational
science, the shaping of basic scientific discoveries into treatments;
and regulatory science, the development and use of new tools, standards
and approaches to more efficiently develop products and to more
effectively evaluate product safety, efficacy and quality.
In order to improve the regulatory science, the two agencies will
jointly make $6.75 million available over 3 years for work in this
area. The research supported through this initiative will add to the
scientific knowledge base by providing new methods, models or
technologies to inform the scientific and regulatory community about
better approaches to evaluating safety and efficacy in medical product
development. IDSA is concerned, however, that this amount of funding
will be insufficient to lead to the types of breakthroughs needed to
bring new antibacterial drug products to the market in a more timely
fashion. We support an increase of $13.25 million in this funding, to a
total of $20 million, to support science around antibacterial drug
development.
antibacterial breakpoints
Physicians need accurate information on susceptibility
interpretative criteria (``breakpoints'') to use antibacterial drugs
wisely. Breakpoints are the science behind standard laboratory policy
and are the basis upon which antibacterial drug selection
determinations are made. The real-life impact of relying upon
inaccurate (including out-of-date) breakpoints are thousands of wrong
treatment decisions being made every day in this country. Without
accurate breakpoint information, patients' safety and lives are at
risk. That is why updating antibacterial drug product labeling and AST
instruments/systems in a timely manner are so critically important.
Again, FDA must have the funding necessary to allow for additional
staff to be able to update these breakpoints on a timely and consistent
basis.
antibacterial use and resistance on u.s. farms
Another area of serious concern is the inappropriate use of
antibacterial drugs in food animal production. An additional $5 million
should be allocated to allow FDA to complete, update and publish
reviews on the safety of antimicrobials important in human medicine
currently used for non-therapeutic purposes in food-producing animals
for their role in the selection and dissemination of antibiotic
resistant food-borne pathogens, these reviews. Since 2003, FDA's Center
for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has required that the pre-approval safety
review for all new antibiotic veterinary drugs include an evaluation of
the likelihood that the proposed drug use in animals will lead to
resistant infections in humans. Because almost all antibacterial drugs
being used for growth promotion and other non-therapeutic purposes in
livestock production were approved by the FDA before 2003, most have
either not undergone reviews with respect to antibacterial resistance
or have undergone reviews that are inconsistent with current standards.
In order to ensure that these drugs meet current safety standards, it
is important to do post-market safety reviews of those classes of
antibiotics important to human medicine that are also being used for
routine non-therapeutic purposes in animal agriculture. These would
include penicillins, tetracyclines, macrolides, lincosamides,
streptogramins, aminoglycosides, and sulfonamides. By providing an
additional $5 million, the subcommittee can ensure that FDA completes
and publishes these critical reviews.
Finally, an additional $3 million should be provided to the
National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS). Jointly
operated by FDA, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), NARMS is a national public
health surveillance system that tracks changes in the susceptibility of
certain enteric bacteria to antimicrobial agents of human and
veterinary medical importance. Systematic collection and analyses of
data is essential to address the growing problem of antibacterial
resistant infections.
NARMS has been level-funded at about $7 million for the last
several years; however, at that level it has been unable to keep up
with life-threatening pathogens, such as MRSA, E. coli and Salmonella.
Additional funding will enable increased surveillance, to include
additional bacterial species and numbers and/or types of samples as
well as allow researchers to utilize more sensitive methods. The
additional funding will also allow NARMS to initiate farm-level
surveillance of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Today's investment in infectious diseases research, surveillance,
prevention, and treatments will pay significant dividends in the future
by dramatically reducing healthcare costs and improving the quality of
life of millions of Americans and others. In addition, U.S. leadership
in infectious diseases research and prevention will translate into
worldwide health benefits. We urge the subcommittee to continue to
demonstrate leadership and foresight in this area by appropriating the
much-needed resources outlined above in recognition of the lives and
dollars that ultimately will be saved.
______
Prepared Statement of the International Walking Horse Association
(IWHA)
IWHA submits the following testimony seeking an increase in funding
for the USDA/APHIS Horse Protection Program to $900,000, as requested
in the President's budget for fiscal year 2011. This funding is
urgently needed to by APHIS in order to fulfill the intent of the Horse
Protection Act, which is to abolish the cruel practice of soring horses
for show ring competition--by increasing the USDA's oversight and
enforcement of the Horse Protection Act (HPA).
In 1970, Congress passed the HPA with the clear intent to end
soring, the intentional infliction of pain to the limbs horses to
produce an exaggerated gait, practiced primarily in the Tennessee
Walking Horse show industry. The practice creates an unfair advantage
in the show ring for those who engage in it, and has significant
negative impacts to both the breed itself and to commerce in and
related to the breed.
Soring often involves the use of various chemicals which are
painted on the lower front legs of a horse, then the legs are wrapped
for days in plastic wrap and bandages to ``cook'' the chemicals deep
into the horse's flesh, but it may also involve various means of
physical abuse. The desired result is that horse's legs and or feet
become extremely painful and sensitive. Then when the horse is ridden,
by attempting to relieve its front feet and legs of pain, it most often
performs an exaggerated gait which is highly rewarded in the show ring.
Some of the physical methods mentioned include inserting foreign
objects such as metal screws or hard acrylic between the shoes and the
horse's hoof, and/or cutting a horse's hoof down to the sensitive live
tissue to cause extreme pain every time the horse bears weight on the
hoof; a practice known as pressure shoeing. Other cruel secondary
practices involve such practices as applying painful chemicals such as
salicylic acid to slough off scarred tissue, in an attempt to remove
evidence of soring.
The Horse Protection Act authorizes the USDA to inspect Tennessee
Walking Horses and Racking Horses--in transport to and at shows,
exhibits, auctions and sales--for signs of soring, and to impose
penalties against violators. Unfortunately, in recent years the
enforcement of the Act has been plagued by underfunding. As a result,
the USDA has not been able to adequately enforce the Act, allowing this
extreme and deliberate cruelty to persist on a widespread basis.
The most effective way to meet the goals of the Act is for USDA
officials to be present at more Tennessee Walking Horse shows. However,
the current funding provision allows USDA attendance at only about 6
percent of shows. Although the USDA set up and has oversight of an
industry-run system of certified Horse Industry Organization (HIO)
inspection programs, which are charged with inspecting horses for signs
of soring at the majority of shows These HIOs have often hired industry
insiders who have an obvious stake in preserving the status quo. In the
absence of strict USDA oversight, these programs often fail to
accomplish the intent of the Act, and in some cases even take advantage
of the lack of USDA oversight in order to thwart the intent of the Act.
Statistics clearly show that when USDA inspectors are in attendance to
oversee shows, the numbers of noted violations for some of the HIOs are
many times higher than at shows where industry inspectors alone are
conducting the inspections. By all measures, the overall DQP program
has been a failure--the only remedy is to abolish it or greatly reduce
dependence on this conflicted industry-run program of self-regulation
and give USDA the resources it needs to adequately enforce the Act.
USDA appears to have recently attempted to step up its enforcement
efforts, as evidenced in 2009 by a more than twofold increase over the
previous year in the number of violations cited at the industry's
largest show (the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration).
However, the top three prize winning horses at that show were all found
after their wins to have been in violation of the HPA, yet their owners
and trainers were allowed to keep the titles and prizes awarded. Horses
identified as sored at shows also continue to be shown in subsequent
events, and their owners continue to win lucrative prizes and
accolades. USDA needs enhanced resources to carry out its
responsibilities as Congress intended, and the public expects.
Lack of a consistent presence by USDA officials at Tennessee
Walking Horse events has fostered a cavalier attitude among industry
insiders, who have not stopped their abuse, but have only become more
clandestine in their soring methods. The continued use of soring to
gain an advantage in the show ring has ruined the reputation of the
Tennessee Walking Horse, both as a breed and show industry. The
continued allowance of soring creates an unfair advantage for those who
are willing to break the law in order to win in the show ring. Besides
the cruelty to the horses, the continued acceptance of sored horses in
the show ring unfairly disadvantages those with sound horses from
competing fairly for prizes, breeding fees, and the value of their
horses. Meanwhile, other owners whose horses are in training with
unscrupulous trainers are often unwittingly suffering property damage
and being duped into believing that their now abused, often permanently
scarred horses are naturally superior.
Currently, when USDA inspectors arrive at shows, many exhibitors
load up and leave to avoid being caught with sored horses. While USDA
could stop these trailers on the way out, Agency officials have stated
that inspectors are wary of going outside of their designated
inspection area, for fear of harassment and physical violence from
exhibitors. Recently, armed security has been utilized to allow such
inspections, at additional expense to this program. The fact that
exhibitors feel they can intimidate government officials without
penalty is a testament to the inherent shortcomings of the current
system.
Further, in years past, inspections were limited to physical
observation and palpation by the inspector. More recently, new
technologies, such as thermography and ``sniffer'' devices (gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry machines), have been developed, which
can help inspectors identify soring more effectively. However, USDA has
been unable to purchase and put enough of this equipment in use in the
field, allowing for industry insiders to continually evade detection.
With increased funding, the USDA could purchase this equipment and
train more inspectors to use it properly, greatly increasing its
ability to enforce the HPA.
The egregious cruelty of soring is not only a concern for animal
protection and horse industry organizations, but also for equine
veterinarians. In 2008, the American Association of Equine
Practitioners (AAEP) issued a white paper condemning soring, calling it
``one of the most significant welfare issues faced by the equine
industry.'' It called for the abolition of the DQP Program, saying
``the acknowledged conflicts of interest which involve many of them
cannot be reasonably resolved, and these individuals should be excluded
from the regulatory process.'' The AAEP further stated, ``The failure
of the HPA to eliminate the practice of soring can be traced to the
woefully inadequate annual budget of $500,000 allocated to the USDA to
enforce these rules and regulations.''
It is unacceptable that nearly 40 years after passage of the Horse
Protection Act, the USDA still lacks the resources needed to end this
extreme form of abuse and the impact it has on the breed and overall
commerce in it. It is time for Congress to give our public servants
charged with enforcing this Act the support and resources they need to
fulfill their duty to effectively protect these horses, those who
compete fairly in showing them, and the public's interest in an
industry that should be realizing its full potential as a positive
source of commerce rather than being thwarted by illegal activity.
We appreciate the opportunity to share our views about this serious
problem, and thank you for your consideration of our request.
______
Letter From the Lacey Act Coalition
March 17, 2010.
Hon. Herb Kohl,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Brownback: We write to
request your leadership and support to fund the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) at the Department of Agriculture to
implement its ongoing responsibilities under the Lacey Act plant
provisions (Section 8204 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008, Public Law 110-246).
The Lacey Act amendments, passed in 2008 with overwhelming support
from Congress, industry, labor and environmental organizations, make it
unlawful to trade wood products or other plants taken in violation of
the laws of either a U.S. State or a foreign country. This ground-
breaking legislation is already beginning to influence the way
companies are making sourcing decisions and monitoring their supply
chains. Full and effective implementation and enforcement of the Lacey
Act will enable American forest product companies to compete fairly in
the global marketplace, help keep jobs in the United States, deter the
destructive impacts of illegal logging on forests and forest-dependent
communities in developing countries, and reinforce initiatives to
mitigate climate change.
The law requires U.S. importers of wood products to file a
declaration identifying the species name and country of harvest--a
critical measure intended by the law's sponsors to increase supply
chain transparency and assist U.S. agencies in fair and strong
enforcement. The prohibition and the declaration requirement affect a
wide array of American industry, so it is critical that the declaration
process generates data in a streamlined, cost-effective manner without
unduly burdening legitimate trade. To that end, APHIS, which is
responsible for implementing the declaration provision, needs $5.5
million in funding to establish an electronic declarations database and
to add internal capacity to perform data analysis needed for monitoring
and enforcement purposes.
We recognize that this is a tight budget year; however, support for
the Lacey Act amendments is critical as they herald U.S. leadership on
a complex global environmental and business issue. Other key allies are
watching the United States and looking to emulate this example. Thus we
urge you to allocate adequate funds to APHIS in the fiscal year 2011
Agriculture, FDA and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for effective
implementation of its new responsibilities under the amended Lacey Act,
to help curb the importation of illegally sourced wood products into
the United States.
Sincerely,
Amazon Watch
American Forest and Paper Association
Conservation International
Defenders of Wildlife
Dogwood Alliance
Double Helix Tracking Technologies
Environmental Investigation Agency
Friends of the Earth
Global Witness
Hardwood Federation
Humane Society International
The Humane Society of the United States
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Rainforest Action Network
Rainforest Alliance
Rainforest Relief
Sierra Club
Sustainable Furnishings Council
The Forest Trust
The Nature Conservancy
TRAFFIC
United Steelworkers
Wildlife Conservation Society
World Wildlife Fund
______
Letter From the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
March 26, 2010.
Hon. Herb Kohl,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for fiscal year 2011 Federal funding of 2.5 percent of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (at least $20 million annually) for the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program
Dear Senator Kohl: The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (Metropolitan) has adopted a position supporting funding for
the Department of Agriculture's Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Title II program.
For 70 years, Metropolitan has provided imported water to the
Southern California region from the Colorado River and the State Water
Project originating in Northern California. Our mission is to provide
high quality, reliable drinking water supplies primarily for municipal
and industrial use. Metropolitan is the Nation's largest provider of
imported water to an urban area. The population today in our service
area is 19 million and it is projected to rise to 25 million within the
next 25 years. Metropolitan is comprised of 26-member public agencies
that serve an area spanning 5,200 square miles and six southern
California counties.
Water imported via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) has the
highest salinity of Metropolitan's imported sources of supply,
averaging around 630 milligrams per liter since 1976 and causing
economic damages. 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 cost of water treatment and 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;
--Increased use of imported water for leaching; and
--Increased cost of desalination and brine disposal for recycled
water.
Concern over salinity levels in the Colorado River has existed for
many years. To deal with the concern, the International Boundary and
Water Commission approved Minute No. 242, Permanent and Definitive
Solution to the International Problem of the Salinity of the Colorado
River in 1973, and the President approved the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act in 1974. High total dissolved solids in the
Colorado River as it entered Mexico and the concerns of the seven
Colorado River Basin States regarding the quality of Colorado River
water in the United States drove these initial actions. To foster
interstate cooperation on this issue and coordinate the Colorado River
Basin States' efforts on salinity control, the seven Basin States
formed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum).
The salts in the Colorado River system are indigenous and
pervasive, mostly resulting from saline sediments in the Basin that
were deposited in prehistoric marine environments. They are easily
eroded, dissolved, and transported into the river system.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program reduces salinity
by preventing salts from dissolving and mixing with the River's flow.
Irrigation improvements (sprinklers, gated pipe, lined ditches) and
vegetation management reduce the amount of salt transported to the
Colorado River. Point sources such as saline springs are also
controlled. The Federal Government, Basin States, and contract
participants spend close to $50 million annually on salinity control
programs.
The Program, as set forth in the Act, benefits both the Upper
Colorado River 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 millions of dollars per year due to the River's salinity.
By some estimates, concentrations of salts in the Colorado River
cause approximately $350 million in quantified damages in the lower
Colorado River Basin States each year and significantly more in
unquantified damages. Salinity control projects have reduced salinity
concentrations of Colorado River water on average by over 100
milligrams per liter with an economic benefit of $264 million per year
(2005 dollars) in avoided damages.
Metropolitan urges this subcommittee to support funding for the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program for fiscal year 2011 of
2.5 percent of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (at least $20 million annually) for the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
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.
I would appreciate it if you make this statement a part of the
formal hearing record concerning fiscal year 2011 appropriations for
the Department of Agriculture. I thank you for your subcommittee's
support of this program in years past and hope that you will again
support funding to continue this valuable program.
With best regards,
Jeffrey Kightlinger,
General Manager.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials (NASEO)
Chairman Kohl and members of the subcommittee, I am Phil Giudice,
Chairman of the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO).
NASEO is submitting this testimony in support of funding of at least
$39 million in discretionary appropriations for the Rural Energy for
America (REAP) (section 9007 of the 2008 Farm Bill) in addition to the
$70 million in mandatory funding. The REAP program was created as part
of the 2002 Farm Bill and it has been a huge success. Over 3,500 clean
energy projects have been implemented in every State since 2003. These
activities have included energy efficiency projects, as well as wind,
solar, biomass, anaerobic digesters, biodiesel, and geothermal.
Technical assistance has also been a big factor in this program.
Funding requests are generally three times the amount of available
funds. 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
(and increased volatility in energy prices), it is critical that we do
more to address the energy problems of rural America.
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 the
Farm Bill, then 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.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Commodity Supplemental Food Program
Association (NCSFPA)
The Honorable Herb Kohl, Mr. Chairman, and subcommittee members:
Thank you for this opportunity to present information regarding the
USDA/FNS Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP).
The National Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association
(NCSFPA) requests the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee
fund CSFP for fiscal year 2011 at $176.788 million, as requested by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, and include language directing the
Department to utilize all available resources to supplement the CSFP
food package and meet the rising demand for nutritional assistance
among our vulnerable senior population.
This first effort at national food assistance began in 1969 with
monthly packages designed to supplement protein, calcium, iron,
vitamins A and C for low-income mothers and children (preceding WIC);
nutrients shown to be lacking in the diets of low-income households.
Low-income seniors added in 1983 now comprise 96 percent of all CSFP
participants.
CSFP is a unique program that brings together Federal and State
agencies, along with public and private entities, The USDA purchases
specific nutrient-rich foods at wholesale prices. State agencies
provide oversight, 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 for simple,
fast access to the supplemental foods (canned fruits and vegetables,
juices, meats, fish, peanut butter, cereals, grain products, cheese and
dairy products from American farmers) and nutrition education to
improve participants health and quality of life. This partnership
reaches even homebound seniors in both rural and urban settings with
vital nutrition and remains an important ``market'' for commodities
supported under various farm programs.
In fiscal year 2009, the CSFP provided services through 150 non-
profit community and faith-based organizations at 1,800 sites located
in 32 States, the District of Columbia, and two Indian Tribal
Organizations (Red Lake, Minnesota and Oglala Sioux, South Dakota). On
behalf of those organizations NCSFPA would like to express our
gratitude for the increased fiscal year 2010 funding. We are most
appreciative for the funding increase that has allowed CSFP to begin in
seven new States, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Maine, New Jersey,
Oklahoma, and Utah, and has also resulted in a significant increase in
the number of individuals who are now able to participate in the
program in the other CSFP States.
CSFP's 41 years of service is a testimony to the power of community
partnerships of 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--
many of whom will not qualify for other nutrition assistance
programs.
--The CSFP provides a monthly selection of food packages tailored to
specific nutritional needs. Eligible participants are
guaranteed [by law] a certain level of nutritional assistance,
nutrition education, and food preparation guidance each month.
The nutritional content of the food provided has improved with
the introduction of low-fat cheese, canned fruits packed in
fruit juice, and low-salt canned vegetables.
--The CSFP purchases foods at wholesale prices, directly supporting
American farmers. The average food package cost is estimated at
$19.82 and the retail value is $50.00-$60.00.
--The CSFP involves the entire community. Thousands of volunteers and
private companies 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 limited support
systems. (See Attachment 1.)
In a recent CSFP survey, more than half of seniors living alone
reported an income of less than $750 per month. One-half of respondents
from two-person households reported an income under $1,000 per month.
Twenty-five percent were enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) and 50 percent said they ran out of food
during the month. Seventy percent of senior respondents said they
choose between medicine and food.
The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee has consistently
supported CSFP, acknowledging it as a cost-effective way of providing
nutritious supplemental foods. Congress provided funding to meet the
rising need among the elderly in the fiscal year 2010 appropriation.
USDA's budget request will provide adequate resources for our monthly
caseload of 604,931 mothers, children and seniors, and we urge the
subcommittee to accept it. We also want to be sure that you are aware
that four additional States are either considering or preparing to
submit applications to USDA for approval. Should USDA's approval be
granted, it may be necessary to reconsider if funds beyond those
requested will be required to allow newly approved States to begin
operations in fiscal year 2011.
CSFP and other nutrition programs such as SNAP, are only
supplemental programs by design. Together they cover a shortfall that
many seniors face each month. These programs must have support to meet
the increasing need as part of the ``safety net''.
``The Managers fully support continued operation of this program and
recognize the need for a substantial expansion of CSFP . . . the
Managers encourage the Secretary to approve all remaining States for
expansion and to expand caseload in all participating States.''--Joint
Statement of Managers, H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation and Energy Act
of 2008.
``CSFP has charms worth considering in designing human service programs
. . . the program's trademarks were its simplicity and accessibility .
. . CSFP in particular represents a guaranteed source of high quality
food, delivered in a balanced package.''--The Role of CSFP in
Nutritional Assistance to Mothers, Infants, Children and Seniors. The
Urban Institute, August 2008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount in
millions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Commodity Supplemental Food Program
Association requests the following:
To continue serving our monthly caseload of 604,931 $175.888
needy seniors (96 percent of participants), women,
infants and children (4 percent of participants)..
To meet USDA's commodity procurement expenses...... 0.9
----------------
Total fiscal year 2011 request................... 176.788
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 incur
hospital costs $2,000 to $10,000 higher per stay. Proper nutrition
promotes health, treats chronic disease, decreases hospital length of
stay and saves healthcare dollars. America is aging. CSFP must be an
integral part of Senior Nutrition Policy and plans to support the
productivity, health, independence and quality of life for America's
seniors, many of whom now need to continue working at least part-time
beyond retirement age to afford basics.
The CSFP is committed grassroots operators and dedicated volunteers
with a mission to provide quality nutrition assistance economically,
efficiently, and responsibly always keeping the needs and dignity of
our participants first. We commend the Food Distribution Division of
Food and Nutrition Service of the Department of Agriculture for their
continued innovations to strengthen the quality of the food package and
streamline administration.
FISCAL YEAR 2008 NATIONAL CSFP ASSOCIATION ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE/VALUE SURVEY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goods and 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................................................... $461,361 .............. $461,361 .............. $61,121 $522,482 88 $16,097
New York........................................................ 1,947,032 $2,500,000 4,447,032 $20,700 3,984 4,471,716 44 6,500
Vermont FB...................................................... 233,132 .............. 233,132 .............. .............. 233,132 100 ..............
Washington, DC.................................................. 434,945 1,600,000 2,034,945 800,000 173,632 3,008,577 14 ..............
Pennsylvania.................................................... 912,209 18,637 930,846 32,169 48,259 1,011,274 90 100,000
Kentucky........................................................ 980,911 64,645 1,045,556 .............. 24,577 1,070,133 92 624,093
Mississippi..................................................... 437,969 .............. 437,969 30,520 199,906 668,395 66 7,104
North Carolina.................................................. 75,126 .............. 75,126 .............. .............. 75,126 100 ..............
South Carolina.................................................. 232,192 .............. 232,192 .............. 1,342 233,534 99 22,500
Tennessee \1\................................................... 840,812 .............. 840,812 .............. .............. 840,812 100 ..............
Illinois........................................................ 869,405 .............. 869,405 .............. 25,643 895,048 97 ..............
Indiana......................................................... 269,732 25,000 294,732 25,000 68,502 388,234 69 32,189
Michigan........................................................ 4,861,625 314,317 5,175,942 310,168 1,722,543 7,208,653 67 4,637,316
Minnesota....................................................... 881,829 319,848 1,201,677 2,213 449,733 1,653,623 53 864,844
Red Lake, MN \1\................................................ 6,204 .............. 6,204 .............. .............. 6,204 100 ..............
Ohio............................................................ 978,890 198,896 1,177,786 65,770 328,264 1,571,820 62 85,774
Wisconsin....................................................... 316,547 50,000 366,547 .............. 275,406 641,953 49 54,610
Louisiana....................................................... 4,089,578 .............. 4,089,578 330,000 1,104,420 5,523,998 74 ..............
New Mexico...................................................... 1,032,128 129,911 1,162,039 248,791 233,955 1,644,785 63 479,843
Texas........................................................... 997,895 157,200 1,155,095 .............. 297,774 1,452,869 69 ..............
Colorado........................................................ 1,104,198 67,533 1,171,731 57,449 119,319 1,348,499 82 1,343,961
Iowa............................................................ 216,086 353,367 569,453 .............. 13,463 582,916 37 ..............
Kansas.......................................................... 328,548 7,200 335,748 10,000 83,642 429,390 77 89,519
Missouri........................................................ 583,040 .............. 583,040 .............. 16,608 599,648 97 ..............
Montana \1\..................................................... 425,091 .............. 425,091 .............. .............. 425,091 100 ..............
Nebraska........................................................ 820,898 75,529 896,427 40,470 301,447 1,238,344 66 70,479
North Dakota \1\................................................ 175,413 .............. 175,413 .............. .............. 175,413 100 ..............
South Dakota.................................................... 176,228 8,416 184,644 .............. 26,464 211,108 83 ..............
Ogala Sioux, SD \1\............................................. 40,360 .............. 40,360 .............. .............. 40,360 100 ..............
Alaska.......................................................... 134,803 63,000 197,803 1,015,000 104,235 1,317,038 10 ..............
Arizona......................................................... 940,739 252,000 1,192,739 2,000 184,312 1,379,051 68 2,000,000
California...................................................... 3,373,339 580,027 3,953,366 35,400 1,248,232 5,236,998 64 379,140
Nevada.......................................................... 371,461 174,278 545,739 .............. 24,960 570,699 65 179,400
Oregon.......................................................... 84,166 96,573 180,739 4,436 44,317 229,492 37 5,200
Washington...................................................... 228,871 7,500 236,371 208,000 90,076 534,447 43 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total............................................... 29,862,763 7,063,877 36,926,640 3,238,086 7,276,137 47,440,863 63 11,306,319
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No information provided. Feb. 24, 2009. Client Extras incl.: flu shots, fresh produce, clothing, books, toys, health screenings, personal care items, energy efficient items, dairy, baked
goods, eye exams, etc.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
(NCFC)
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 2011
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 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, fuel 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 export programs
We continue to strongly support USDA's export programs, which 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. The Coalition supports the Administration's
proposed funding increases to several export promotion activities, but
Coalition members are very concerned with the Administration's proposed
20 percent reduction to the Market Access Program (MAP). MAP has been
very successful in helping develop, maintain, and expand long-term
export markets for U.S. agricultural products. U.S. agriculture is
reliant on exports, which account for about one-third of farm cash
receipts. And, given that over 95 percent of the world's consumers live
outside the United States, foreign markets are critical for U.S.
agriculture to expand sales and boost incomes. In addition, the ability
of cooperatives to use MAP funding helps give individual farmers the
ability to market their products overseas, which they otherwise would
not be able to do on their own. As part of the 2008 Farm Bill, Congress
authorized $200 million for MAP and we urge the subcommittee to support
funding at the authorized level.
NCFC also supports full funding of the Foreign Market Development
program, the Export Credit Guarantee Programs, the Dairy Export
Incentive Program, and Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops.
food aid and foreign assistance programs
NCFC strongly supports maintaining funding for America's food aid
programs to meet humanitarian needs, enhance the potential growth in
recipient countries, and stimulate the economy in the United States.
Given the ongoing food crisis for many nations, the amount and
dependability of U.S.-produced food aid from USDA's Food for Peace
program (Public Law 480) is crucial to our humanitarian assistance
efforts. Specifically we recommend full funding of Public Law 480 title
II for emergency and non-emergency food assistance programs at the $2.5
billion authorized under the 2008 Farm Bill. We also urge the
subcommittee to reject any proposals to divert funds from the Public
Law 480 title II program to Local and Regional Purchase programs.
NCFC also supports the goals and objectives and full funding of
USDA's Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole International Food for
Education and Child Nutrition Program.
foreign agricultural service
Additionally, we 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
trade and assistance programs, and to provide the technical assistance
and support needed to help maintain and expand U.S. agricultural
exports.
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 2011, the Administration's budget proposal provides $730 million
in both budget authority and program level for salaries and expenses
for the rural development mission area, compared to $715 million for
fiscal year 2010.
In addition to ensuring that RB-CS has the funding for resources to
assist in enhancing the competitiveness of farmer-owned cooperatives,
we suggest the committee include report language directing RB-CS to
improve the usability and scope of its statistics and data. In
particular, the data should include information regarding farmer
cooperatives' positive impact on competition in the market place and on
rural communities.
energy
Cooperatives play a significant role in the development and
marketing of renewable fuels, both ethanol and biodiesel. Many
cooperatives are also investigating opportunities for renewable energy
from biomass such as dairy manure. In addition, USDA programs are being
used more and more by cooperatives to improve energy efficiency in
their facilities. We strongly support funding for important grant, loan
and related programs which research and promote the development and
advancement of biofuels and opportunities for biomass, as well as such
programs that assist in reaching energy efficiency goals.
value-added producer grants
USDA's Value-Added Producer Grants (VAPG) 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 is as an excellent example
of an effective public-private partnership bringing a number of self-
sustaining products to market.
Since the program's inception, NCFC has strongly support the VAPG.
However, the program is not useful to cooperatives if they cannot meet
the application and eligibility requirements. This was the case for the
2009 program when USDA imposed requirements that were too burdensome,
and in some cases impossible, for many cooperatives meet. We are
hopeful that the subcommittee will look favorably upon funding the
program up to the $40 million as authorized under the Farm Bill in the
hopes that USDA does not again impose unnecessary and overly stringent
requirements on cooperatives and thus limit their participation.
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.
For fiscal year 2011, the Administration's budget proposal provides
an overall program level of $942 million, which represents a decrease
from the $993 million in loans estimated to be guaranteed in fiscal
year 2010. Accordingly, we recommend that resources be increased to at
least the fiscal year 2010 estimated level.
rural business enterprise grants
The Rural Business Enterprise Grants was reauthorized 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 to allowing farmers 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.
research
Another important area of emphasis when it comes to enhancing the
global competitiveness of farmer cooperatives and American agriculture
is research. NCFC is a member of the National Coalition for Food and
Agriculture Research, and supports their goals of increasing Federal
food and agriculture research. We also joined with over 50 other
agriculture groups in supporting funding for the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative, which was authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill.
conservation
We also want to express our strong support for important
conservation and related programs administered by USDA's Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Programs like the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) provide needed 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. We support continued funding as
prescribed in the Farm Bill for these important working lands
conservation programs.
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.
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
historic support of cooperative efforts and essential to ensure the
continued availability of high quality products on a competitive basis.
Therefore, it is important to ensure that farmers and their
cooperatives remain fully eligible to participate in these programs.
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 Environmental Services Center (NESC)
Chairman Kohl, Ranking Member Brownback and members of the
subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies. We request $3.5 million for the
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse (NDWC), a program that provides
water infrastructure services for small communities and rural areas
nationwide.
introduction
My name is Gerald Iwan, and I represent the National Environmental
Services Center (NESC), located at West Virginia University in
Morgantown, West Virginia. Previously, I was for 20 years the drinking
water administrator for the State of Connecticut Department of Public
Health, during which time I oversaw the implementation of all
regulatory aspects of the Safe Drinking Water Act. In my current
assignment with NESC, I manage a unique program with nationally
recognized expertise in drinking water, wastewater, and small community
infrastructure security and emergency preparedness. NESC provides
access to an in-depth repository of information and specialized
technical assistance and training services.
water and wastewater infrastructure challenges
More than 41,000 small community water systems in the United States
provide drinking water to communities of 3,300 people or less (EPA,
2009). These systems are mandated to comply with the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) in providing reliable and safe water services to their
citizens. Small water systems perform with limited financial, human and
equipment resources and account for the majority of SDWA violations.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Water and Wastewater Grants
and Loans program may be the only option small systems have to obtain
funding to address necessary system improvements. However, reliable
technical assistance provided by organizations such as NESC is also
necessary to help them overcome the many challenges they and their
operators face in complying with local, State and Federal regulations.
Recognizing these challenges, the USDA funds ``Rural Water and
Wastewater Technical Assistance and Training (RWTA) Programs'' through
authorization in the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (the
Farm Bill). NESC's National Drinking Water Clearinghouse is one RWTA
program. We have been funded by USDA for 19 years to help communities
and rural areas identify and evaluate solutions to water or wastewater
problems, improve facility operation and maintenance, and prepare
funding applications for water or wastewater treatment facility
construction projects.
deliverables provided by the ndwc
The NDWC serves local officials, utility managers, system operators
and RWTA professionals in small and rural communities. Telephone
callers obtain toll-free drinking water technical assistance from our
staff of certified operators, engineers, and scientists. Our quarterly
publication On Tap, a magazine for small drinking water systems,
provides information about water treatment, financing, and management
options and has 27,000 subscribers. A comprehensive Web site
www.nesc.wvu.edu and searchable online databases featuring water,
wastewater, security, and emergency preparedness resources for
communities of 10,000 or fewer residents provides round-the-clock
access to contemporary information for small water systems. Annually,
visitors to our Web site view more than 3.5 million pages and download
over 1.6 million documents. Training sessions customized for small and
rural areas, teleconferences, and more than 700 free and low-cost
educational products give people the instruction and tools they need to
address their most pressing drinking water issues.
We anticipate an even greater need for NDWC services in 2011 due to
the current recession, the severe winter conditions that have produced
flood devastation, and the Federal effort to stimulate the economy
through infrastructure projects. Stimulus funding in the water sector
has been directed to construction, with only a fraction directed to
support water and wastewater facility operation and maintenance. Small
and rural communities will need increased support from RWTA providers
to plan for and protect their current and future utility assets. The
NDWC has accordingly expanded its scope of deliverables for fiscal year
2011 to provide additional services. It is imperative that the NDWC
continues to receive funding from the Technical Assistance and Training
Grants (TAT) account to assist small community drinking water systems.
request
We request a congressionally directed appropriation of $3.5 million
to continue and increase the NDWC program services through the
Technical Assistance and Training (TAT) Grants program. Thank you for
considering our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Organic Coalition (NOC)
Chairman Kohl, Ranking Member Brownback, 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 fiscal
year 2011 funding requests for USDA 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; Organically
Grown Company; Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA; and the
Union of Concerned Scientists.
usda/agricultural marketing service (ams)
National Organic Program
Request: $10.08 million
Sales of organic food and beverages had experienced a rapid growth
over the last decade, averaging nearly 20 percent per year. Even
despite the recession, organic sales grew at a rate of 5 percent in
2009. The National Organic Program (NOP) is the Agency charged with
regulating and enforcing the USDA organic label. For years, the
exponential growth of the organic industry has far outpaced the
resources provided to the NOP, which has greatly limited the ability of
NOP to fulfill its regulatory and enforcement role credibly.
Fortunately, both Congress and the Administration have heard this
concern, and have responded with a steady increase in funding in the
last 2 years to meet these needs. In addition, over the last year, the
new leadership at USDA and NOP has taken significant steps to bolster
the integrity of the program and public confidence in the organic label
though issuance of long overdue regulations (e.g. pasture rule for
organic ruminants) and through efforts to seek independent oversight of
its accreditation procedures to assure compliance with international
standards of quality management. In addition, NOP leadership has made
its budget and its plans fully transparent to the public. These changes
have met with widespread praise from the full spectrum of stakeholders
in the organic sector, from consumers to farmers to handlers.
We are strongly supporting the Administration's fiscal year 2011
request for $10.08 million for the National Organic Program (NOP),
representing an increase of $3.11 million over last year's level. $2.11
million of this request is for regulatory review, enforcement and
equivalency agreements; with an additional one-time amount of $1
million for assisting certifying agents in achieving compliance with
international certification standards.
In addition, we are requesting inclusion of report language
praising the Agency for the significant improvements that have been
made over the past year. In previous years, Congress has included
report language urging improvements in the program. Now that many of
these improvements are being made, it seems fitting for Congress to
recognize the progress. We request inclusion of the following report
language:
The Committee notes the significant improvements made in the
administration of the National Organic Program over the last year, in
keeping with the requests of this Committee in previous years. The
Committee applauds the Agency for the long-overdue publication of the
final pasture rule for organic livestock, the decision to seek
independent oversight and recognition of its accreditation procedures
by NIST within the Department of Commerce, and for its actions to make
the NOP budget and planning process transparent to the public. These
actions bolster the integrity of the USDA organic seal and enhance
public confidence in that label.
usda (ams, ers, nass)
Organic Data Initiative
Request: $5 million
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.''
Section 10302 of the Farm, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amends
the provision further to provide mandatory funding, and to authorize $5
million annually in discretionary funding.
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.
The organic data collection and analysis effort at USDA has made
significant strides in recent years, but remains in its infancy.
Because of the multi-agency nature of data collection within USDA,
organic data collection and analysis must also be undertaken by several
different agencies within the Department: The Administration's fiscal
year 2011 budget requests $300,000 for AMS and $500,000 for NASS
organic data collection. We are requesting the full $5 million to be
appropriated for this initiative, to be divided between the three main
data collection sub-agencies as follows:
--Economic Research Service (ERS)
--Request: $1.5 million
--Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
--Request: $3 million
--National Agricultural Statistic Service (NASS)
--Request: $500,000
usda/national institute of food and agriculture (nifa)
Organic Transitions Program
Request: $5 million
The Organic Transition Program, authorized by Section 406 of the
Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Reform Act (AREERA) for
Integrated Research Programs, 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
organic agriculture is experiencing significant growth as well. The
benefits of this research are far-reaching, with broad applications to
all sectors of 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.
Starting in fiscal year 2009, the program has been administered in
combination with the NIFA Water Quality integrated research program, to
study the watershed impacts of organic systems.
The Organic Transition Program was funded at levels ranging between
$2.1 and $1.8 million during the period of fiscal year 2003 through
fiscal year 2009, and then received a significant increase to $5
million in fiscal year 2010. The Administration's budget proposes to
eliminate funding for the Organic Transition Program, as well as the
other section 406 ``integrated'' programs within the NIFA budget, based
on vague assertions that the needs will be met through other
competitive grants research programs. The past Administration made
similar recommendations regarding the 406 programs, which have been
consistently rejected by Congress. We urge the Committee to continue to
reject this proposal to defund the Organic Transition Program, and to
provide fiscal year 2011 funding at last year's level of $5 million.
Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI)
Request: $10 million
OREI is USDA's flagship competitive research and education grant
program specifically dedicated to the investigation of organic
agriculture. The program is consistently oversubscribed and in fiscal
year 2009 could only fund 17 percent of the funds requested. The 2008
Farm Bill authorized $25 million annually in discretionary funds, in
addition to mandatory funds authorized. We request that $10 million be
appropriated for OREI for fiscal year 2011.
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)
Request: Report language on Conventional/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. 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.
Since fiscal year 2005, the Senate Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee has included report language raising concerns about this
problem, and urging CSREES (now NIFA) to give greater consideration to
research needs related to classical plant and animal breeding when
setting priorities within the National Research Initiative/AFRI.
Despite this report language, research proposals for classical plant
and animal breeding that have sought AFRI funding in recent years have
been consistently denied.
In Section 7406 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008,
the National Research Initiative was merged with the Initiative for
Future Agriculture and Food Systems to become the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative (AFRI). Congress included language within AFRI to
make ``conventional'' plant and animal breeding a priority for AFRI
research grants, consistent with the concerns expressed by the
Appropriations Committee in preceding appropriations cycles.
When CSREES released its AFRI Program Announcement for fiscal year
2009, it invited research proposals on conventional/classical plant and
animal breeding. However, when researchers submitted their initial
letters of intent spelling out their research topics in the arena, they
were nearly all rejected in the pre-proposal stage.
We are awaiting the fiscal year 2010 AFRI Request for Applications.
After numerous meetings with NIFA leadership and letters urging the
full inclusion of the classical breeding into the fiscal year 2010
funding priorities, we are anxious to see how the Agency responds to
this need, and the strong expressions of both the Congressional
appropriators and authorizers on this matter.
We are requesting report language from the subcommittee to
reiterate that the funding for classical plant and animal breeding
should be a priority area within the AFRI process.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)
Request: $30 million ($25 million for research and
education grants; and $5 million for professional
development grants)
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. The President's budget requests $30 million for SARE program
for fiscal year 2011, including $10 million to start the Federal-State
Matching Grant program. Consistent with the President's request, we are
requesting $25 million for research and education grants (including $10
million for the Federal-State Matching Grant program) and $5 million
for professional development grants.
usda/rural business cooperative service
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA)
Request: $3 million
ATTRA, authorized by Section 6016 on the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008, is a national sustainable agriculture information
service, which provides practical information and technical assistance
to farmers, ranchers, Extension agents, educators and others interested
and active in sustainable agriculture. ATTRA interacts with the public,
not only through its call-in service and Web site, but also provides
numerous excellent publications written to help address some of the
most frequently asked questions of farmers and educators. Much of the
real-world information provided by ATTRA is extremely helpful to both
the conventional and organic communities, and is available nowhere
else. As a result, the growth in demand for ATTRA services has
increased significantly, both through the Web site-based information
services and through the growing requests for workshops. We are
requesting $3 million for ATTRA for fiscal year 2011.
usda/agriculture research service (ars)
Classical Plant and Animal Breeding Activities
Request: $9.03 million
As noted above in the AFRI section of this request, public
resources for classical plant and animal breeding have dwindled in
recent decades, and as a result, our capacity for public breeding in at
critical point. While USDA's statutory obligation to address this
problem through the AFRI competitive grant program remains strong,
USDA's ARS also has an obligation in this regard. Although ARS has the
resources and expertise to help reverse this dangerous trend, the
Agency has not made a concerted effort in this regard, until now. The
Administration's fiscal year 2011 budget requests an increase of $4.289
million for ``crop breeding to enhance food and production security''
and other $4.75 million for ``crop protection to enhance food and
production security,'' with a clear focus on classical plant and animal
breeding activities.
As described on pages 16-19 and 16-29 of the USDA Budget
Justifications document:
``Sustainability of our Nation's food supply depends on a
continuous supply of improved plant varieties with protection from
emerging diseases, insects, and damaging environmental conditions.
While there has been major investment in the public and private sector
in new genomic and biotechnology strategies for crop improvement,
classical plant breeding research and expertise continues to be a major
but unmet need. Developing improved seeds and new varieties requires
effective methods and expertise in selecting desired traits
(`phenotyping') and field evaluation. There is an urgent national and
international need for more research and expertise in classical,
conventional plant breeding. New emerging diseases such as citrus
greening and cereal rusts are threatening the future supply of food
crops. Temperature extremes and reduced water supplies provide new
challenges for crop production.
``Breeding research is particularly needed to improve complex
traits that require long-term research and challenging methods such as
developing perennial grains with high seed yields, as well as
integrating disease resistance and weather stress tolerance genes from
wild and weedy relatives of crop plants. Perennial grain production
systems offer benefits in soil and water conservation, and decreased
dependence on fertilizer and fuel inputs. The Land Institute, Salinas,
Kansas, has led in developing perennial grain varieties and production
systems. More breeding and disease protection research is needed to
increase the production capacity of perennial grains and to optimize
perennial grain production systems.
``The need for classical breeding research and expertise is
growing, but the supply of trained classical plant breeders is
diminishing worldwide. The entire plant breeding industry faces a
shortage of trained plant breeders as a result of industry expansion.
Also, traditional partner disciplines for plant breeding, such as
statistics, plant pathology, physiology, and entomology have often
shifted away from field-based, practical plant breeding applications.
ARS has a force of more than 125 plant breeders, working in teams with
plant pathologists, biologists, entomologists and other skilled crop
scientists. Clearly, ARS has an obligation to increase training, and
mentor more new plant breeders to meet this urgent need.''
We strongly agree with the above statement and fully support the
request for $9.03 million to meet this need. In addition, we request
report language calling on ARS to report to the Committee about its
activities in the area of classical breeding.
usda/food and nutrition service
WIC Program
Report Language: Removing Barriers of Access to Organic
Foods for WIC recipients
Despite the growing body of peer-reviewed research demonstrating
the human health benefits of organic food, particularly for pregnant
mothers and small children, many States have greatly limited or
prohibited access to organic foods as part of the WIC program. Some of
the barriers are explicit, whereby WIC recipient are expressly
prohibited in some States from using their WIC certificates or vouchers
for organic versions of WIC foods. Others barriers are indirect, such
as rules that make it difficult for retail stores that carry organic
foods from participating in the program. Therefore, we are requesting
that report language be included in the Food and Nutrition Service
section of the fiscal year 2011 Appropriations report, such as:
``The Committee is concerned about the number of States the have
set up barriers within the WIC program to hinder or prohibit WIC
recipients from purchasing organic food. The Committee strongly urges
FNS to actively encourage States to remove barriers to the purchase of
organic foods as part of the basic food instrument, and to understand
the nutritional and health benefits of organic foods for the vulnerable
populations served by this program.''
______
Prepared Statement of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
Thank you for the opportunity to present our funding requests for
the fiscal year 2011 Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA and Related
Agencies appropriations bill. The National 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.
Below is a summary of our requests, followed by a brief description
and rationale for each item.
national institute of food and agriculture
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program
Fiscal year 2010 actual: $14.5 million (research & education) +
$4.7 million (extension) = $19.2 million total.
USDA 2011 request: $15.0 million + $5.0 million + $10.0 million
(Federal-State Matching Grants) = $30.0 million total.
NSAC 2011 request: $18.0 million + $5.0 million + $7.0 million =
$30 million total.
Organic Transitions Program
Fiscal year 2010 actual: $5.0 million.
USDA 2011 request: $0.
NSAC 2011 request: $5.0 million.
Research and Education Grants for the Study of Antibiotic Resistant
Bacteria
Fiscal year 2010 actual: $0.
USDA 2011 request: $0.
NSAC 2011 request: $3.0 million.
farm service agency
Beginning Farmer Individual Development Account (IDA) Pilot Program
Fiscal year 2010 actual: $0.
USDA 2011 request: $0.
NSAC 2011 request: $5.0 million.
Direct Farm Ownership and Operating Loans--Program Levels
Fiscal year 2010 actual: $650.0 million + $1,000.0 million.
USDA 2011 request: $475.0 million + $900.0 million.
NSAC 2011 request: $650.0 million + $1,000.0 million.
natural resources conservation service
Conservation Technical Assistance
Fiscal year 2010 actual: $887.6 million.
USDA 2011 request: $923.7 million.
NSAC 2011 request: $923.7 million.
rural business and cooperative service
Value-Added Producer Grants
Fiscal year 2010 actual: $20.4 million.
USDA 2011 request: $20.4 million.
NSAC 2011 request: $30.0 million.
Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program
Fiscal year 2010 actual: $9.0 million (no limitation on $4 million
in Farm Bill direct funding + $5 million discretionary).
USDA 2011 request: $11.7 million (no limitation on Farm Bill $4
million mandatory + $7.7 million discretionary).
NSAC 2011 request: $11.7 million (no limitation on Farm Bill $4
million mandatory + $7.7 million discretionary).
general provisions--mandatory conservation programs
Conservation Stewardship Program
Fiscal year 2010 actual: no limitation on mandatory farm bill
direct funding.
USDA 2011 request: permanent cut of 770,000 acres.
NSAC 2011 request: no limitation on farm bill direct funding.
Wetlands Reserve Program
Fiscal year 2010 actual: no limitation on mandatory farm bill
funding.
USDA 2011 request: permanent cut of 57,018 acres, including new
15,224 acre cut.
NSAC 2011 request: no limitation on direct farm bill funding.
We also oppose changes in mandatory funding for the other Farm Bill
mandatory conservation programs.
general provisions--marketing, rural development, and research
We support mandatory farm bill spending at their Farm Bill levels
for the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative,
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, Outreach and
Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, Farmers'
Market Promotion Program, and Community Food Grants.
We support the general provision for the Regional Innovation
Initiative. This initiative proposes a set aside of up to 5 percent
from 20 existing programs for a total of $135 million and allocate
these funds competitively among regional pilot projects tailored to
local needs and opportunities.
justifications
national institute of food and agriculture
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE). We
urge you to support the President's fiscal year 2011 request for $30
million for SARE, divided among research and education grants ($25
million) and extension and professional development grants ($5
million). We propose the Federal-State Matching Grants program be
included in the total for research and education grants (as it is in
the SARE authorizing law) and funded at $7 million, or slightly less
than the President' request.
SARE has funded farmer-driven research, education and extension
initiatives into profitable, environmentally and socially sound
practices for over 20 years. Funding SARE at $30 million would finally
jumpstart the Federal-State Matching Grant program as well as the
already-approved emphasis on farming systems research, while allowing
the existing award-winning research program to continue, including the
popular farmer research grant initiative.
By funding the matching grants program as envisioned by Congress,
competitive grants could be awarded to State sustainable agriculture
centers and institutes to develop innovative sustainable agriculture
programs that address high-priority problems and opportunities; embed
sustainable agriculture in university and statewide research,
education, and extension; and leverage greater on-farm change. The huge
demand for SARE grants has unfortunately limited the amount of funding
into larger farming systems work. The proposed increase in research
grant funding could begin to remedy this shortfall, and the SARE
councils have already approved this shift, pending appropriations.
We strongly urge an increased commitment to SARE through an
appropriation of $30 million in fiscal year 2011 that is 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 Transitions Research Program.--We request $5 million for
fiscal year 2011 to maintain the funding level established in fiscal
year 2010. Beginning in fiscal year 2009, this program was combined
with the Water Quality integrated program to fund multi-year projects
examining the effects of organic systems on water quality. The combined
funding will focus resources on one of the most effective solutions to
critical water quality problems. Maintaining the funding level
established in fiscal year 2010 will allow the organic program to
cooperate with other priority natural resource programs to provide
environmental solutions in an integrated program with strong farmer
delivery mechanisms built in. Without at least level funding, organic
research and extension will fall even further behind in its overall
share of the research budget, a share which continues to lag behind
trends in agriculture.
Research and Education Grants for the Study of Antibiotic Resistant
Bacteria.--We request that you support $3 million to fund Research and
Education Grants for the Study of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria
(Section 7521 of the 2008 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act).
Antibiotic-resistant disease has been identified by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention as the number one public health
challenge in the United States. The 2008 Farm Bill addressed the need
to create a program to conduct research to develop animal production
systems less dependent on antibiotics. This program has not yet been
launched, and we ask the subcommittee to appropriate $3 million to
launch the program.
farm service agency
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Account (IDA)
Pilot Program.--We urge you to invest in the future of a diverse U.S.
agriculture by supporting the full $5 million amount authorized and
requested for this exciting new program. This competitive grants
program authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill enables beginning farmers and
ranchers to open an Individual Development Account (matched savings
account) in order to save for a farming-related asset, including
farmland, farming equipment, breeding stock, trees or similar
expenditures. A 50 percent local match is needed to obtain the Federal
grant. This program creates the technical infrastructure as well as the
incentives to assist individuals who might not historically be able to
save to make asset-building purchases to get started in farming. It
would operate in 15 States initially.
Direct Farm Ownership and Operating Loans.--We are grateful that
Congress has provided more money in the last 2 years for these loans.
However, even with the increased funding, the Farm Service Agency has
already indicated that it is likely to run out of money before the
current fiscal year ends and would require a supplemental to meet
demand. In light of this and in light of the continuing financial
crisis, it does not make sense to decrease the credit budget as the
Administration proposes. The budget should be at least level with
fiscal year 2010 in order to meet increased demand. Lending from FSA is
critical for family farms in general and particularly for beginning and
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
natural resources conservation service
Conservation Technical Assistance.--Conservation Technical
Assistance (CTA) is a critical addition to the mandatory conservation
technical assistance provided to farmers enrolled in the farm bill
conservation programs. Technical assistance is provided to agricultural
producers enrolling in financial assistance programs as well as to help
farmers with conservation planning and implementation without financial
assistance, including conservation compliance plans. CTA also funds
assessment of conservation practices and systems that underpin the
conservation programs, as well as NRCS collection, analysis,
interpretation and dissemination of information on the status and
condition of the Nation's soil, water and other resources.
NSAC supports the CTA funding level of $923.7 million in the
President's fiscal year 2011 budget request. We would also support a
modest increase in the percentage of Farm Bill mandatory funding that
may be used for technical assistance.
rural business and cooperative service
Value-Added Producer Grants.--VAPG offers grants to farmers and
ranchers developing new farm and food-related businesses that boost
farm income, create jobs and increase rural economic opportunity. As
farmers and rural communities face tough economic times, VAPG grants
encourage the kind of entrepreneurship and innovation in agriculture
that enable farms and communities to survive economically. Furthermore,
strong interest in farm-to-school and farm-to-hospital programs is
generating significantly increased demand for mid-tier value chains and
local food enterprises to aggregate local production and make it
available in a form usable by cafeterias, exactly the kind of rural
development strategy VAPG is designed to support. VAPG is an excellent
investment in rural economic recovery. We request VAPG funding of $30
million in fiscal year 2011.
Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program.--RMAP provides business
training, technical assistance and loans to owner-operated businesses
with up to 10 employees. Small businesses make up 90 percent of all
rural businesses, and micro-businesses are the fastest growing segment
in many rural areas. With nearly one-quarter of rural jobs attributable
to micro-enterprises, small business development provides a major
economic stimulus opportunity for rural communities. This program is
critical to preventing a credit freeze to an essential part of the
rural economy. It will help create jobs, attract young people, build
assets, create local markets and alleviate poverty. NSAC supports the
USDA request that RMAP be funded at $11.7 million, inclusive of $4
million of mandatory farm bill funding.
general provisions--mandatory conservation programs
The cuts proposed in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget to the
Conservation Stewardship Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, and other mandatory conservation programs would rob nearly $1
billion from the conservation baseline, or roughly a quarter of the
conservation increases gained in the 2008 Farm Bill. These programs
lead to critical public benefits and environmental services such as
cleaner water, erosion reduction, carbon sinks, energy conservation,
improved wildlife habitat and restored wetlands. Farmer demand for
these programs exceeds available dollars, a fact the carefully
negotiated farm bill funding package took into account. That deal
should not be reversed through backdoor limitations. We note in
particular that the proposed cut to the Conservation Stewardship
Program would wipe out over 6 percent of the program, yet yield just $2
million in fiscal year 2011 savings, making it the worst possible
candidate for a change in mandatory spending. We recognize that an
annual cut in EQIP funding has been assumed since before the passage of
the last Farm Bill, but beyond this designated amount, we strongly
oppose the proposed 1-year and permanent cuts to these critical
programs.
general provisions--marketing, rural development, and research
We strongly support full funding (no changes in mandatory funding)
for the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative,
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, Outreach and
Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, Farmers'
Market Promotion Program, and Community Food Grants.
We encourage you to support the Regional Innovation Initiative. The
initiative proposes to set aside up to 5 percent from 20 existing
programs for a total of $135 million in budget authority and to
allocate these funds competitively among regional pilot projects
tailored to local needs and opportunities. These projects would aim to
foster regional strategies for activities--such as sustainable
renewable energy or local and regional food system development--which
can benefit from planning and innovation beyond the normal separate,
isolated project-by-project approach. This more coordinated approach is
well worth testing.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Walking Horse Association (NWHA)
The National Walking Horse Association (NWHA) is a nonprofit
organization founded in 1998 and dedicated to the promotion of sound,
naturally gaited Walking Horses. We are a Horse Industry Organization
(HIO) certified by the USDA to provide inspection services as required
in the Horse Protection Act (HPA) of 1970. Despite our DQP program's
excellent record for compliance with the HPA--the strongest in the
Walking Horse industry--we nevertheless urge the Committee to increase
funding for the USDA/APHIS Horse Protection Program to $900,000, as
requested in the President's budget for fiscal year 2011.
This funding is urgently needed to fulfill the intent of the Horse
Protection Act--to eliminate the cruel practice of soring which
continues to be used on many horses at many horse shows and sales even
all these years after the passage of the HPA. The additional funding
will allow the USDA to strengthen its enforcement of this law.
NWHA's Designated Qualified Persons (DQPs) inspected over 13,000
horses in 2009 and had a .02 percent violation rate. Our DQPs go
through a vigorous training program and do an excellent job of
enforcing NWHA's zero tolerance policy for sore horses which goes above
and beyond the HPA in some areas. While we are very proud of our
record, we recognize that some HIOs have a much lower compliance rate.
We also recognize the critical role that USDA plays by attending the
many horse shows each weekend during the show season where compliance
is typically low.
NWHA appreciates the support of the USDA when its staff attends our
shows, but even more important is the USDA presence at horse shows
where horses STILL enter the show ring in pain! Our organization and
others that are committed to enforcing the HPA cannot do it alone. We
need your support for the USDA so that we can work together to make a
significant impact in eliminating the practice of soring horses. It is
long past time for Congress to make a serious commitment to end this
shameful era in the history of our Nation. Thank you.
______
Letter From the National WIC Association
March 5, 2010.
Hon. Herb Kohl,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Brownback: We are writing in
support the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request to fund WIC--
the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children--at $7.603 billion. This funding level should be adequate to
serve 10.1 million mothers and young children. However, we urge
Congress and the Administration to carefully monitor WIC participation
and food cost inflation to assure that the budget request responds to
economic conditions.
For more than 35 years, WIC has contributed to healthier
pregnancies and birth outcomes, improving children's health, growth and
development. WIC children enter school Ready to Learn and show better
cognitive performance. As the Nation's premier public health nutrition
program, WIC is a cost-effective, sound investment--insuring the health
of our children.
This year is no different. WIC currently serves over 9.2 million
mothers, infants and children--over half of all America's infants and
one-quarter of its children 1-5 years of age. Families turning to WIC
for nutrition assistance are vulnerable and at risk. Economic crises
compounded their vulnerability. WIC food packages and the nutrition
services that accompany them ensure that WIC mothers and your children
stay healthy.
We understand that Congress is in the process of developing an
Agriculture appropriations bill. It will be important for Congress to
provide $7.603 billion for WIC in the bill including:
--$125 million for contingency funding;
--We urge Congress to direct USDA to eliminate restrictions on the
use of contingency funds for the purchase of breastpumps needed
to serve participants;
--$60 million for management information systems;
--$14 million for infrastructure funding;
--$83 million for breastfeeding peer counselors and other related
activities;
--To compliment peer counseling activities, we urge Congress to
direct USDA to provide State and local WIC agencies flexibility
to implement other evidence-based diversified breastfeeding
related activities;
--$10 million for breastfeeding performance bonuses;
--We urge Congress to direct USDA to work closely with State and
local WIC agencies to develop appropriate selection criteria
for these bonuses:
--$15 million for evaluating program performance;
--$10 million for Federal Administrative Oversight to improve the
application process; and
--$5 million for coordination with other programs and modernization
of Federal information.
technology infrastructure
We urge you to join in supporting the President's fiscal year 2011
budget request for WIC and the vulnerable mothers and young children
who turn to WIC for nutritious foods, nutrition education,
breastfeeding support and promotion, healthcare referrals and other
essential social service referrals in times of economic uncertainty.
Sincerely,
Patti Hauser, RD, CD, MPA,
Chair, Board of Directors, National WIC Association.
The Rev. Douglas Greenaway,
President and CEO, National WIC Association.
______
Prepared Statement of the National WIC Association
wic fiscal year 2011 funding agenda
WIC for a Healthier, Stronger America
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children--WIC--has improved at-risk children's health, growth and
development, and prevented health problems for 35 years. WIC children
enter school Ready to Learn, showing better cognitive performance.
WIC serves over 9.2 million mothers and young children, over half
of all America's infants and one-quarter of its children 1-5 years of
age. Still, the National Academy of Sciences has found that there is
significant unmet need and many WIC eligibles are unable to receive
services due to funding constraints and infrastructure limitations.
Families Turn to WIC in Economic Crises
Families turning to WIC for nutrition assistance are vulnerable and
at-risk. Economic crises compound their vulnerability. WIC food
packages and the nutrition services that accompany them ensure that WIC
mothers and young children stay healthy. WIC caseload has grown from
serving 7.9 million mothers and young children in fiscal year 2004 to
over 9.2 million in fiscal year 2009.
Quality Nutrition Services--at WIC's Heart
Quality nutrition services are the centerpiece of WIC: nutrition
and breastfeeding education, nutritious foods, and improved healthcare
access for low and moderate income women and children with, or at risk
of developing, nutrition-related health problems, including overweight,
obesity, and type-2 diabetes. WIC's committed, results oriented,
entrepreneurial staff stretch resources to serve the maximum numbers of
women, infants, and children and ensure program effectiveness and
integrity.
As the Nation's premier public health nutrition program, WIC is a
cost-effective, sound investment--ensuring the health of our children.
NWA's mission: providing leadership to promote quality nutrition
services; advocating for services for all eligible women, infants, and
children; and assuring the sound and responsive management of WIC.
nwa funding recommendations
Fiscal Year 2011 Appropriation
NWA supports the President's fiscal year 2011 budget commitment to
fully fund the WIC Program at $7.603 billion to serve 10.1 million
mothers and young children, of which $125 million will be placed in a
Contingency Fund. Full funding must be adequate to:
--maintain current and anticipated WIC participation levels;
--assure adequate nutrition services and administration (NSA)
funding;
--respond to food cost inflation; and
--provide funds for nutrition services to maintain clinic staffing
and pay competitive salaries.
NWA urges Congress and the Administration to carefully monitor WIC
participation and food cost inflation to assure that the budget request
responds to economic conditions. Should the economic recovery take
longer than anticipated, more families will turn to WIC for nutrition
assistance and WIC may require additional funding.
NWA Strongly Urges Congress To Support Replenishment of the WIC
Contingency Fund.--The Fund is essential to meet the demand for WIC
services in situations of unpredictable caseload or food cost spikes.
In fiscal years 2006-2009, unforeseen economic circumstances forced WIC
to utilize contingency funds to assure that mothers and young children
were not turned away.
Improving WIC Infrastructure
WIC Infrastructure Funding Has Remained Static at Roughly $14
Million Since 1999.--Despite a 25 percent growth in participation since
1999, WIC has responded entrepreneurially to limit clinic challenges by
shifting from 1-month to 3-month food benefit issuance and where
possible, extending clinic hours. WIC needs to build capacity to
respond to growth and reduce the risks of systemic problems. The
current infrastructure funds level is inadequate to meet other
essential program infrastructure needs. This has caused U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) to sacrifice the resource base on a single
priority to the disadvantage of other infrastructure program needs
including special project grants that help WIC State agencies
demonstrate effective ways of doing business. NWA recommends: that
infrastructure funding be unencumbered and increased from $14 million
to $40 million.
Enhancing Service Delivery Through Information Technology
Improving the Use of Information Technology To Enhance Service
Delivery and Building Management Information Systems (MIS).--Technology
provides a critical foundation for quality WIC services and Program
Integrity. Funding WIC technology from existing resources compromises
WIC's ability to deliver services and develop responsive MIS systems.
To develop and maintain MIS and electronic service delivery systems
(EBT)--NWA recommends: Congress provide an additional $60 million
annually in unencumbered funds outside the regular NSA grant to
implement MIS core functions, upgrade WIC technology systems, maintain
MIS and electronic services, render MIS systems EBT ready, and expedite
WIC's transition to EBT.
Promoting and Supporting Breastfeeding in WIC
Breastfeeding Is the Normal and Most Healthful Way To Feed
Infants.--The benefits to infants and mothers are numerous. For
children, science shows that human milk: may lower the risk of obesity
in childhood and adolescence; promotes and supports development;
protects against illness symptoms and duration; improves IQ and visual
acuity scores; lowers cancer rates; decreases cavities; improves
premature infants' health; and significantly reduces healthcare costs.
For mothers: decreases the likelihood of ovarian and breast cancers;
reduces the risk of osteoporosis and long-term obesity; increases
bonding between mother and child; and significantly reduces the
incidence of child neglect. NWA recommends: increasing resources to
assure more breastfeeding mothers access to critical breastfeeding
support to $83 million.
Maintaining the Enhanced Value of the Breastfeeding Food Package.--
In 2005, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended an enhanced
breastfeeding food package to encourage and support mothers who choose
to fully breast feed. USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), in
publishing its Interim Final Rule on the WIC Food Packages, correctly
emphasized the distinction between the fully breastfeeding food package
and other food packages for women when it set the fruit and vegetable
cash value vouchers for this food package at $2 above the value for
other food packages for women. The fiscal year 2010 Agriculture
Appropriations Act directed FNS to increase the fruit and vegetable
cash value voucher for women to $10, eliminating that important
distinction. NWA recommends: To maintain the enhanced value of the
fully breastfeeding food package, as recommended by the IOM and as
proposed by FNS in the Interim Final Rule, the monthly cash value
voucher benefit for fully breastfeeding women be increased by $2 and
that at least $8 million be provided to make this critical public
health nutrition change possible.
Promoting WIC Breastfeeding Success.--Breastfeeding rates among WIC
women are on the rise. According to the most recent WIC Participant
Characteristics Report, breastfeeding rates are at record highs--59
percent initiation and 30 percent at 6 months. Despite the continued
rise in breastfeeding rates overall, they are lower than the Healthy
People 2010 goal of 75 percent breastfeeding initiation and 50 percent
at 6 months. NWA recommends: Congress provide $10 million in
performance bonus payments (to be treated as program income) to State
agencies that demonstrate the highest proportion of breast fed infants,
as compared to other State agencies participating in the program; or
the greatest improvement in proportion of breast fed infants, as
compared to other State agencies participating in the program. When
providing performance bonus payments to State agencies, FNS should
consider a State agency's proportion of participating fully breast fed
infants.
Assuring Science Based WIC Food Packages
Meeting the IOM Recommendations for Children.--The IOM recommended
to USDA that the WIC food package for children provide a monthly fruit
and vegetable cash value voucher benefit of $8. The IOM sought to
provide a reasonable benefit of fruits and vegetables to promote
healthier eating choices that would help to stem the incidence of
overweight, obesity, and diet related chronic diseases. The current
funding level only allows for a monthly value of $6. NWA recommends:
that the monthly cash value voucher benefit for children be increased
to $8 to meet the science recommended by the IOM and that at least $104
million be provided to make this important public health nutrition
change possible.
Meeting the IOM Recommendations for Culturally Appropriate Foods.--
The IOM recommended to USDA that the WIC food packages provide a wide
variety of culturally appropriate foods to appeal to the diverse
populations that WIC serves. Included among the specific recommendation
were a wide variety of whole grains, varieties of canned fish, and soy
beverage, calcium-rich tofu, and yogurt as appropriate milk
substitutes. NWA recommends: that Congress make available $89 million
to allow WIC to provide yogurt in the WIC food packages to fund this
public health nutrition recommendation.
Assessing the Effects of Nutrition Services
NWA urges Congress to provide $15 million to update rigorous health
outcomes research and evaluation documenting WIC's continued success.
______
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
(Program). The Program is funded through EQIP, the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's Basinwide Program, and cost-sharing provided by the Basin
States. With the enactment of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act (FSRIA) in 2002, there have been opportunities to adequately fund
the EQIP portion of the Program. I request that the subcommittee
designate 2.5 percent, but no less than $20 million, of the EQIP funds
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
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
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). While retaining the Department
of the Interior as the lead coordinator for the Program, the amended
Act recognized the importance of USDA efforts in meeting the objectives
of the Program. Many of the most cost-effective salinity control
projects to date have occurred since implementation of the USDA's
authorization for the Program.
Bureau of Reclamation studies show that quantified damages from the
Colorado River to United States water users are about $350,000,000 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 directed, with the enactment the Federal Agricultural
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA), that the program should
continue to be implemented as a component of EQIP. However, until 2004,
the program 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 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
targeted small watershed improvements and did not recognize that water
users hundreds of miles downstream are significant beneficiaries of the
salinity control program. Proposals for EQIP funding were 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 Program. The NRCS
concluded that the salinity control program is different from the small
watershed approach of EQIP. The watershed for the 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 need to accelerate
the salinity control program in order to maintain the 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 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. In fiscal year 2011, it is anticipated that the
States will cost-share about $8 million and local agricultural
producers will add more than $7 million, resulting in contributions for
over 40 percent of the total program costs.
USDA salinity control projects have proven to be a 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 an 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. I request
that adequate funds be appropriated to NRCS technical assistance and
education activities directed to the salinity control program
participants (producers).
I urge the Congress to appropriate at least $1 billion in fiscal
year 2011 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 (OFRF)
The Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) is a national
farmer-directed, non-profit organization fostering the improvement and
widespread adoption of organic farming systems. The multiple benefits
of organic production and market systems make organic agriculture a
highly cost-effective investment for achieving national economic and
environmental goals.
OFRF's funding requests for fiscal year 2011 Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill emphasize research, data collection, and
information dissemination. These are all significant limiting factors
for the growth and improvement of organic agriculture. Our requests
represent continued progress towards achieving the ``fair-share''
benchmark for organic agriculture within the USDA-REE mission area. The
fair-share benchmark compares the U.S. retail market share of organic
products to the percentage of USDA-REE spending on activities
explicitly directed towards organic agriculture. Organic represents 3.5
percent of the U.S. retail market share, but, according to OFRF
estimates,\1\ explicit organic research represents only 1.8 percent of
the USDA-REE mission area budget. We present below a summary of our
requests followed by more justifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OFRF estimates total fiscal year 2010 organic REE spending at
approximately $51 million out of approximately $2.9 billion for the REE
mission area. This includes: OREI ($20 million), ORG ($5 million), ARS
direct organic ($17 million), ODI ($1 million), and other NIFA grants
($8 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--USDA--National Institute of Food and Agriculture
--Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative
Fiscal year 2010 actual: no limit on mandatory funding
USDA fiscal year 2011 request: no limit on mandatory funding
OFRF fiscal year 2011 request: no limit on mandatory funding
plus $10 million in discretionary funds
--Organic Transitions Integrated Research Program
Fiscal year 2010 actual: $5.0 million
USDA fiscal year 2011 request: $0
OFRF fiscal year 2011 request: $5.0 million
--Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program
Fiscal year 2010 actual: $14.5 million (research and education)
+ $4.7 million (extension) = $19.2 million
USDA fiscal year 2011 request: $15.0 million + $5.0 million +
$10.0 million (State matching grants) = $30.0 million
OFRF fiscal year 2011 request: $15.0 million + $5.0 million +
$10.0 million = $30.0 million
--USDA--Agricultural Research Service
--Direct Organic Projects (allocation within agency baseline)
Fiscal year 2010 actual: $17.2 million
USDA fiscal year 2011 request: N/A
OFRF fiscal year 2011 request: $42 million (approximate result
of requested ``fair-share'' language)
--Classical Plant and Animal Breeding Activities
Fiscal year 2010 actual: N/A
USDA fiscal year 2011 request: $9.0 million
OFRF fiscal year 2011 request: $9.0 million
--National Agricultural Library
Fiscal year 2010 actual: N/A
USDA fiscal year 2011 request: Increase of $1.5 million for
sustainability information framework
OFRF fiscal year 2011 request: Increase of $1.5 million for
sustainability information framework
--USDA--AMS/ERS/NASS
--Organic Market and Production Data Initiatives
Fiscal year 2010 actual: $0.75 million ($0.5 million for ERS,
$0.250 million for NASS)
USDA fiscal year 2011 request: $0.8 million ($0.3 million for
AMS, $0.5 million for NASS)
OFRF fiscal year 2011 request: $5.0 million ($3.0 million for
AMS, $1.5 million for ERS, $0.5 million for NASS).
--USDA--Agricultural Marketing Service
--National Organic Program
Fiscal year 2010 actual: $7.0 million
USDA fiscal year 2011 request: $10.1 million
OFRF fiscal year 2011 request: $10.1 million
--USDA--Natural Resources Conservation Service
--Mandatory Conservation Programs
Fiscal year 2010 actual: $270 million cut to Environmental
Quality Incentives Program
USDA fiscal year 2011 request: Cuts to several mandatory
conservation programs
OFRF fiscal year 2011 request: No limit on mandatory funding
--Conservation Technical Assistance
Fiscal year 2010 actual: $887.6 million
USDA fiscal year 2011 request: $923.7 million
OFRF fiscal year 2011 request: $923.7 million
justifications
usda--national institute of food and agriculture
Organic agriculture provides multiple benefits to society, and has
the potential to help achieve important agricultural outcomes. These
outcomes include providing a nutritious and safe food supply,
protecting and enhancing natural resources, building a prosperous
agricultural economy, and adapting to climate change.
These benefits can only be realized with a strong commitment to
organic research. Congress created and has funded the dedicated organic
research programs to improve organic systems and leverage their
multiple benefits. However, Congress has also made clear that these
programs should not be the only source for scientific improvement of
organic agriculture. Continued growth of the dedicated funding streams
is necessary to build a critical mass of capacity for organic research
and extension. This increased capacity in turn will allow for organic
research to be competitive within other grant programs. Additionally,
the organic research programs address significant, specific research
needs not addressed by any of the other competitive research grant
programs at the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI)
OFRF Fiscal Year 2011 Request: No Limit on Mandatory
Funding Plus $10 Million in Discretionary Funds
OREI is USDA's flagship competitive research and education grant
program specifically dedicated to the investigation of organic
agriculture and the delivery of its outcomes. The program is
consistently oversubscribed and in fiscal year 2009 could only fund 17
percent of the funds requested. The 2008 Farm Bill authorized $25
million annually in discretionary funds. In addition to the $20 million
in mandatory funding available in fiscal year 2011, OFRF requests $10
million of the $25 million in discretionary authority in fiscal year
2011. Protecting and growing the funding for this program would
continue to make progress towards the fair-share benchmark for USDA
funding for organic research and extension, would help respond to the
strong demand for the program, and would increase the capacities of
University organic programs to utilize other competitive research
funds.
Organic Transitions Integrated Research Program (ORG)
OFRF Fiscal Year 2011 Request: $5.0 Million
ORG is the smaller and older of the two USDA competitive grant
programs dedicated to organic research and education. From 2003 to
2008, it was administered together with OREI. Starting in fiscal year
2009, NIFA has been combining the program with 406 Integrated Water
Quality research program. The newly combined program funds multi-year
projects that examine the effects of organic production systems on
water quality. This approach provides a ``specialized'' complement to
the general purposes of OREI, and OFRF supports this move by the
Agency. Additionally, ORG supports formal educational activities (e.g.,
curriculum development for colleges), which OREI does not fund.
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget eliminates funding for ORG
along with funding for all of the other Section 406 integrated
programs, and justifies the cuts by saying that those research
objectives will be met through other competitive research grants
programs such as the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative. Given
the type of research that AFRI/NRI has funded in the past and the
limited opportunities that appear in the newly issued 2010 Request for
Applications, we doubt that AFRI will sufficiently support integrated
activities for organic systems similar to those currently funded
through ORG. The past Administration made similar recommendations on
the 406 programs, which Congress consistently rejected. We urge the
subcommittee to again reject these cuts and keep ORG level funded at $5
million in fiscal year 2011.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE)
OFRF Fiscal Year 2011 Request: $15.0 Million (Research &
Education) +$5.0 Million (Extension) +$10.0 Million
(Federal-State Matching Grants Program) = $30.0
Million
We strongly support the President's fiscal year 2011 request of $30
million for SARE, which includes $10 million to launch a Federal-State
matching grants program to leverage non-Federal funds to support
sustainable agriculture research. SARE is a farmer-driven, regionally
led, and outcomes-oriented competitive research and extension grants
program that complements the activities of dedicated organic research
programs.
usda--agricultural research service
Direct Organic Projects
OFRF Fiscal Year 2011 Request: Report Language Resulting in
``Fair-Share'' Expenditures (Appx. $42 Million)
USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has an organic research
portfolio and a work plan to guide further organic research objectives.
The current total for direct organic projects is $17.2 million, about
1.3 percent of the ARS budget. To strengthen the Agency's organic
portfolio and reach the ARS fair-share benchmark, we request report
language directing the Secretary of Agriculture to use a share of the
ARS budget for research specific to organic food and agricultural
systems that is at least commensurate with the organic sector's retail
market share (currently 3.5 percent).
Classical Plant and Animal Breeding Activities
OFRF Fiscal Year 2011 Request: $9.0 Million
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget requests an increase of
$4.289 million for ``crop breeding to enhance food and production
security'' and another $4.75 million for ``crop protection to enhance
food and production security,'' with a clear focus on classical plant
and animal breeding activities. In recent decades, there has been a
significant decrease in the public resources supporting classical plant
and animal breeding, and the Nation's capacity for public breeding is
now at a crisis point. We fully support this request for much-needed
classical breeding activities conducted through ARS.
National Agricultural Library (NAL)
OFRF Fiscal Year 2011 Request: Increase of $1.5 Million for
Sustainability Information Framework
We strongly support the President's fiscal year 2011 request for an
increase of $1.5 million for NAL to develop a framework for information
access and databases focused on sustainable agricultural practices and
systems.
usda--ams/ers/nass
Organic Market and Production Data Initiatives
OFRF Fiscal Year 2011 Request: $5.0 Million ($3.0 Million
for AMS, $1.5 Million for ERS, $0.5 Million for
NASS)
Data on prices, yields, and markets are vital to farmers for
production planning, market development, risk management, and obtaining
financial credit. The organic sector is still without vital
comprehensive data on par with what USDA provides for conventional
agriculture, putting organic farmers at a significant disadvantage. The
absence of marketing and production data specific to organic
agriculture inhibits organic producers and handlers, and limits the
effectiveness of policies enacted to facilitate the public benefits of
organic agriculture.
Activities of AMS, ERS, and NASS require continued full support to
build upon the previous investments. AMS has planned further
enhancement of organic reporting and the development of additional
organic market information tools. NASS released its first-ever organic
agriculture production survey in February, and will need funds to
develop cross tabs and conduct further analysis. ERS will need
additional targeted funds to continue expanding the Agency's overall
program of research and analysis of organic agriculture, and will work
jointly with NASS to analyze the data from the organic production
survey.
The 2008 Farm Bill provided $5 million in mandatory funds for ODI
and additional authority up to $5 million annually for ODI. Those
mandatory funds have been applied to important projects, but there is
still an increasing backlog of information needs. We are asking the
subcommittee to exercise its full authority and allocate $5 million for
fiscal year 2011 to organic data collection, distributed among the
three agencies leading this initiative.
usda--agricultural marketing service
National Organic Program
OFRF Fiscal Year 2011 Request: $10.1 Million
We support the President's fiscal year 2011 request of $10.1
million for NOP. This budget request will help protect the integrity of
the organic label, allow for proper enforcement of the national organic
standards, and restore consumer confidence in the organic label.
usda--natural resources conservation service
Mandatory Conservation Programs
OFRF Fiscal Year 2011 Request: No Limit on Mandatory
Funding
The cuts proposed in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget to the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Conservation Stewardship
Program, and other conservation programs would rob over $1 billion from
the conservation baseline, or nearly a quarter of the conservation
increases in the 2008 Farm Bill. These programs lead to cleaner water,
erosion reduction, carbon sinks, improved wildlife habitat, and other
essential environmental services.
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA)
OFRF Fiscal Year 2011 Request: $923.7 Million
We strongly support the President's full request for CTA, which is
funded through yearly appropriations for NRCS to provide conservation
technical assistance to farmers and ranchers. CTA also funds assessment
of conservation practices and systems that underpin the conservation
programs, as well as NRCS collection, analysis, interpretation and
dissemination of information on the status and condition of the
Nation's soil, water and other resources. This information is used by
farmers and by Federal, State and private natural resource managers who
are charged with managing and protecting natural resources.
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.'' Application
submitted to OREI fiscal year 2010 round and currently under
consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Organic Trade Association (OTA)
Chairman Kohl, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee, I
am Christine Bushway, executive director of the Organic Trade
Association (OTA). The organic agricultural economy continues to be one
of the fastest-growing sectors of American agriculture, with retail
sales increasing by approximately 14 to 20 percent each year since
1990. U.S. organic product sales totaled $26 billion in 2009, with
organic food sales reaching $24.2 billion to represent 3 percent of the
domestic food market. In addition, exports of U.S. organic products
were over $1 billion in 2009. To help continue this growth, we
respectfully request the following funding levels for programs
pertinent to the organic industry: USDA--National Organic Program--
$10.1 million; USDA--Organic Data Initiative--$5 million; USDA--Organic
Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative--$35 million; USDA--
Organic Transitions Integrated Research Program--$5 million; USDA--
Agricultural Research Service--$9.03 million; and National Center for
Appropriate Technology--Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural
Areas--$3 million.
The Organic Trade Association is the membership-based business
association for organic agriculture and products in North America. Its
members include growers, shippers, processors, certifiers, farmers'
associations, distributors, importers, exporters, consultants,
retailers and others. OTA's Board of Directors is democratically
elected by its members. OTA's mission is to promote and protect the
growth of organic trade to benefit the environment, farmers, the public
and the economy.
national organic program
OTA supports the President's request of $10.1 million for the
National Organic Program (NOP). This supports Congress's intent to
enhance NOP as expressed through the 2008 Farm Bill, as well as
supporting current NOP projections. USDA's 2007 Census of Agriculture:
Organic Production Survey reported more than 14,540 farms engaged in
organic agriculture productions. OTA's 2010 Organic Industry Survey
shows organic food sales have grown from $3.6 billion in 1997 to $24.2
billion in 2009, with a 2009 growth rate of over 5 percent despite the
recession.
NOP performs regulatory oversight over organic agriculture.
Recognizing continued growth of the industry, the President's budget
asks for $0.6 million more than the 2008 Farm Bill authorized for
fiscal year 2011 ($9.5 million). OTA strongly supports this additional
request.
The $3.1 million increase over fiscal year 2010 provides $2.1
million for regulatory review, enforcement, and development of
equivalency agreements. Another $1 million is included to assist
accredited certifying agents with training costs to enhance compliance
with program regulations. Each of these areas is critical to the
integrity of the program.
Provisions for organic agriculture in the 2008 Farm Bill have
already resulted in better compliance with and enforcement of NOP
standards, an improved appeals process, a final pasture rule and an
organic equivalency agreement between the United States and Canada.
These milestones would not have been possible without support from
Congress to expand NOP staff from 14 in fiscal year 2008 to 31 in
fiscal year 2010, with a total staff of 40 expected in fiscal year
2011.
USDA recently proclaimed that the organic industry has entered an
``Age of Enforcement'' of organic standards. OTA supports this call to
action, and asks Congress to provide the necessary resources for NOP
staff to continue work on the following priorities:
Compliance and enforcement is fundamental to the integrity of the
organic seal, and long-term health of the industry. The additional
funds allow for full implementation of appeals decisions, including
monitoring of final actions through having at least one audit over the
following year, or 6 months for cease-and-desist, suspension or
revocation adverse actions, reducing the backlog from previous years,
and improving compliance resolution time, which averages 75 days.
Accreditation and training of certifying agents is necessary for
consistent application of the standards in the field, and is a critical
precursor to compliance and enforcement. The additional funds allow for
improved qualifications and training of inspectors and auditors and
create an up-to-date database of certified operations.
Development of equivalence agreements reduces and eliminates trade
barriers for American organic producers who want to develop export
markets. Over 70 percent \1\ of organic companies surveyed currently
export, or plan to export, good in the next few years. Currently
organic exports are estimated to total $1 to $1.5 billion annually,
creating between 6,000 and 9,000 jobs.\2\ Requested funds allow for
negotiations with the European Union on organic equivalence. Success in
this negotiation would open up the world's largest market to U.S.
organic exports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Organic Trade Association's 2009 Organic Industry Survey. May,
2009. Page 19.
\2\ ``Every $1 billion increase in exports supports more than 6,000
additional jobs''. Remarks by President Obama at the Export-Import
Bank's Annual Conference. March 11, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding NOP at the requested $10.1 million will provide the
resources needed to maintain the integrity of the organic label that
both domestic and international consumers place their trust in and help
to ensure the continued growth of the organic industry. It will give
NOP the ability to deliver the improvements needed to address
recommendations outlined in the March 18 release of USDA's Office of
Inspector General NOP audit report (http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/
01601-03-HY.pdf).
organic data initiative
OTA supports fully funding the Organic Data Initiative (ODI) at $5
million as authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill. ODI collects and
disseminates data regarding organic agriculture through the
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), the Economic Research Service
(ERS) and the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). This
program has been highly successful in providing valuable information to
Congress, government agencies and the organic industry at a low cost.
AMS collects organic prices and disseminates the data through
Market News Reports, which give producers and buyers knowledge of farm-
gate selling prices for several organic commodities, helping to create
a more stable organic market. This is an excellent first step, but
organic pricing information falls far behind what is available to
conventional agriculture. Organic producers currently only receive
farm-gate prices for a limited number of commodities, while
conventional producers receive farm-gate, terminal and retail price
information for many commodities in all regions of the country. Organic
producers, processors and retailers need this information to maintain a
stable organic market. We request $3 million for AMS to continue and
expand organic price reporting services in fiscal year 2011.
NASS provides surveys based on Census of Agriculture data. In
February 2010, NASS released the Organic Production Survey (2008), the
first to provide a State-by-State collection of the amount of farmland
used for organic production and gross farm sales of organic products.
Such information has been provided for conventional production, and
should continue to be funded for organic production. OTA requests that
NASS receive $0.5 million in fiscal year 2011, as requested in the
President's budget, to continue collecting and distributing organic
agriculture statistics.
ERS published the consumer survey Marketing U.S. Organic Foods:
Recent Trends from Farms to Consumers (2009), and multiple other
reports that used data collected by AMS and NASS in addition to
surveying Americans about their organic consumption patterns. The
reports provided valuable information regarding the growth of and
trends in the organic industry.
ERS also plans to broaden its current research agenda to include
economic analysis of international trade of organic products. In order
to conduct sound economic research, data collected must be
statistically reliable and of high quality. OTA hopes the International
Trade Commission will expand the Harmonized System Codes (HS Codes) for
organic products. With more than 70 percent of certified organic
producers and handlers exporting or planning to export,\3\ these codes
are needed to expand and simplify the trade of organic products. OTA
requests that ERS be funded at $1.5 million in fiscal year 2011 for
continued organic economic analysis and inclusion of organic trade
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Organic Trade Association's 2009 Organic Industry Survey. May,
2009. Page 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the President's budget only includes $0.3 million
for AMS organic price collection and $0.5 million for NASS to conduct
production surveys for organic agriculture, with no provision for funds
for ERS to study organic data. Congress expressed its intention for
comprehensive data collection and analyses in the 2008 Farm Bill by
mandating $5 million to start ODI the first year, then authorizing $5
million in discretionary funds for each year following. Fully funding
ODI at $5 million will help provide critical data necessary for any
agricultural sector to survive, and help increase organic exports.
organic agriculture research and extension initiative
OTA requests $35 million to fund the Organic Agriculture Research
and Extension Initiative (OREI), USDA's flagship competitive research
and education grant program specifically dedicated to the investigation
of organic agriculture and the delivery of its outcomes. OREI provides
grants for a myriad of research projects that improve organic
agriculture. The program is consistently oversubscribed and could only
fund 17 percent of the funds requested in fiscal year 2009.
Funds are given to land grant universities, for-profit
organizations, individuals, private universities and State agricultural
experiment stations to conduct organic research. Projects funded
through OREI include improving organic farming systems and assessing
their environmental impacts across agroeco-regions, enhancing
productivity and soil borne disease control in intensive organic
vegetable production, and improving weed and insect management.
This request includes $20 million in mandatory funding plus $15
million out of an authorized $25 million of discretionary funds in the
2008 Farm Bill. We request $15 million in discretionary funding because
the President's budget folds the Organic Transitions Integrated
Research Program (below) into the Agriculture and Food Research
Institute. If this occurs, less money will be appropriated specifically
for organic research. If the Organic Transitions Integrated Research
Program continues to receive funding, we will reduce OTA's request for
OREI to $30 million.
OREI projects have contributed to the health and sustainability of
the environment and organic agriculture. Funding OREI at $35 million
will support continued organic research by educational, State, and
private institutions.
organic transitions integrated research program
OTA requests $5 million to fund the Organic Transitions Integrated
Research Program (ORG) in fiscal year 2011. Authorized by Section 406
of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998, ORG provides funding for research grants that specifically study
the relationship between organic agriculture and improving critical
water quality problems. This program consistently receives many more
funding requests than it can accommodate.
The President's fiscal year 2011 budget cuts ORG as a separate
program, and merges its responsibilities into the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative. We oppose merging the programs because the funds
needed to continue this important grant program will be forced to
compete with multiple proposals from all agriculture sectors instead of
having dedicated resources. As organic retail sales have grown to 3.5
percent of retail agriculture sales, research funding provided to
organic agriculture has only reached and estimated 1.76 percent as of
fiscal year 2009.\4\ Ending ORG as an organic specific research grant
program will likely increase this gap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Estimate based on $2.9 billion USDA's Research, Education and
Economics Mission fiscal year 2011 funding request and fiscal year 2010
funding of Organic Data Initiative, Organic Agriculture Research and
Extension Initiative, Organic Transitions Integrated Research Program,
Agriculture Research Service and other National Institute of Food and
Agriculture requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORG grants have funded several projects that have led to a better
understanding of the link between agriculture and water quality, with
more worthy proposals waiting for resources. The project should be
funded at $5 million to continue and grow this important research. If
ORG is not funded separately at $5 million, we request an increase in
the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (see OREI
request) to continue supporting this research.
agriculture research service
OTA supports the ARS request for $9.03 million in additional funds
to study classical plant and animal breeding. Public resources for
classical plant and animal breeding have dwindled in recent decades,
while resources have shifted toward genomics and biotechnology, with a
focus on a limited set of major crops and breeds. 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. The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Report has
registered the Committee's concern about this problem every year since
fiscal year 2005, in the context of the CSREES (now the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture) section of the Report.
While USDA's statutory obligation to address this problem through
the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative competitive grant program
remains a strong need, USDA's ARS also has an obligation in this
regard. ARS has the resources and expertise to help reverse this
dangerous trend, but the Agency has not made a concerted effort until
now. The Administration's fiscal year 2011 budget requests an increase
of $4.289 million for ``crop breeding to enhance food and production
security'' and another $4.75 million for ``crop protection to enhance
food and production security,'' with a clear focus on classical plant
and animal breeding activities.
Research on breeding stocks for organic and sustainable agriculture
has not kept pace with the rate at which the organic industry has
grown. Providing ARS with the requested $9.03 million to study
classical plant and animal breeding will help to overcome this lack of
needed research.
appropriate technology transfer for rural areas
We request $3 million to fund Appropriate Technology Transfer for
Rural Areas (ATTRA), as authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill. The (ATTRA)
project of the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) is a
very helpful resource for both beginning and advanced organic farmers.
It has been funded by Congress for many years and continues to develop
resources, including organic system plan templates and technical sheets
on organic production. ATTRA reports that 30 percent of the calls
received are in regards to organic practices.
ATTRA helps thousands of organic and conventional farmers across
the country. A sampling of topics that are routinely asked about are:
reducing the use of herbicides and pesticides; employing farm practices
that help protect air, water, and soil resources; reducing energy and
water use; developing new marketing opportunities by focusing on local
foods, farm-to-school, and farmers markets; and creating rural jobs by
encouraging farming. OTA and NOP refer callers seeking technical
information to ATTRA on a regular basis, whose toll-free number and
bilingual capacity make it a national information resource. Funding
ATTRA at $3 million will enable its work to provide valuable
information to both organic and conventional farmers.
conclusion
Organic agriculture gives farmers more opportunities, improves and
conserves the condition of the environment and gives consumers the
choice to buy foods and other products that are produced to organic
standards. Meeting these funding requests will help to insure the
continued growth of U.S. organic agriculture by supporting the
integrity of the organic label, providing important data and continuing
to support research for organic agriculture.
I thank the committee and look forward to working with you to
advance the organic industry.
______
Prepared Statement of Pickle Packers International, Inc.
summary
Sustained and increased funding is desperately needed to maintain
the research momentum built over recent years and to defray rising
fixed costs at laboratory facilities. Companies in the pickled
vegetable industry generously participate in funding and performing
short-term research, but the expense for long-term research needed to
insure future competitiveness is too great for individual companies to
shoulder on their own.
BUDGET REQUESTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
[Funding needs for four USDA/ARS laboratories are as follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests for Restoration of Funds Not in the $9,200,000
Presidential Budget: U.S. Vegetable Laboratory,
Charleston, South Carolina [Note: These funds are for
the design ($700,000) and construction ($8,500,000) of
the final phases of the planned greenhouse complex.]
---------------
Total Restoration Requests........................ 9,200,000
===============
Requests for Program Enhancement--Pickled Vegetables:
Emerging Disease of Crops (HS)...................... 500,000
Quality and Utilization of Agricultural Products & 300,000
Food Safety (HS)...................................
Applied Crop Genomics............................... 270,400
Specialty Crops..................................... 550,000
---------------
Total Program Enhancements Requested--Pickled 1,620,400
Vegetables.......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA/ARS research provides:
--Consumers with over 150 safe and healthful vegetable varieties
providing vitamins A, C, folate, magnesium, potassium, calcium,
and phytonutrients such as antioxidant carotenoids and
anthocyanins.
--Genetic resistance for many major vegetable diseases, assuring
sustainable crop production with reduced pesticide residues--
valued at nearly $1 billion per year in increased crop
production.
--Classical plant breeding methods combined with bio-technological
tools, such as DNA marker-assisted selection and genome maps.
--New vegetable products with economic opportunities amidst
increasing foreign competition.
--Improved varieties suitable for machine harvesting, assuring post
harvest quality and marketability.
--Fermentation and acidification processing techniques to improve the
efficiency of energy use while continuing to assure safety and
quality of our products.
--Methods for delivering living pro-biotic microorganisms in
fermented or acidified vegetables.
--New technology and systems for rapid inspection, sorting and
grading of pickling vegetable products.
Health and Economical Benefits
Health agencies continue to encourage increased consumption of
fruits and vegetables, useful in preventing heart disease, cancer,
stroke, diabetes and obesity.
Vegetable crops, including cucumbers, peppers, carrots, onions,
garlic and cabbage (sauerkraut), are considered ``specialty'' crops and
not part of commodity programs supported by taxpayer subsidies.
Current farm value for just cucumbers, onions and garlic is
estimated at $2.4 billion with a processed value of $5.8 billion. These
vegetables are grown and/or manufactured in all 50 States.
Thank you for your consideration and expression of support for the
USDA/ARS.
Attachment
concern for sustained and increased research funding usda/agricultural
research service
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, diabetes and obesity
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
$2.4 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. These programs contribute directly
to top research priorities that the Research, Education, and Economics
Mission Area (REE) of the USDA has identified in that they develop
vegetable crop germplasm and preservation technology that contributes
to improved profitability with reduced pesticide inputs in a safer,
higher quality product grown by rural farm communities across the
United States, consequently improving food security and food safety.
Improved germplasm, crop management practices and processing
technologies from these projects have measurably contributed to the
profitability, improved nutritional value and increased consumption of
affordable vegetable crops for children and adults in America and
around the world.
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 20 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. healthcare
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 U.S. 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 used 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 U.S. 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)
New approaches for pasteurization and application of microwave heat
processing to acidified foods to achieve major improvements in the
efficiency of energy utilization and reduction in water use while
assuring safety and quality of products that require thermal
processing; (2) development of techniques to deliver living pro-biotic
microorganisms to consumers in fermented or acidified vegetable
products.
Nearly all pickled vegetables in the aisles of your super market
are heated (pasteurized) so they are shelf stable at room temperature.
Current steam and water bath pasteurizer technologies, which were
developed in the 1940s and 1950s, have been very successful in that
there as never been an outbreak of illness caused by commercially
processed fermented or acidified vegetables. These older processing
technologies are not very efficient in the use of energy or water
resources, however. Our recent experience with soaring energy prices
makes it clear that major improvements in the ways we heat process our
products are required. There are three promising approaches that could
benefit the broad range of products and sizes of companies that
constitute the membership of PPI. First, is to develop practical ways
to preheat and pack vegetables to reduce or even eliminate the
residence time required in current pasteurizers. Secondly, is to adapt
newer thermal processing technologies, particularly microwave heating,
to our products. Thirdly, is to modify containers and product
ingredients such that less heat and associated water use is required to
assure killing of pathogenic bacteria and other spoilage
microorganisms. Modifications of processes require strong scientific
justification to assure ourselves, FDA, and the public that safety and
quality will be maintained. In concert with any new processing
technologies adequate process verification methods to assure process
control and acceptance of our processes by FDA must be developed and
validated. The objective will be to develop and transfer to the
fermented and acidified vegetable industry new, scientifically
validated energy efficient processing technologies that will assure the
safety and quality of the products we make.
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'' in that they 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
New innovations and technology can help deliver high quality and
healthy fruits and vegetables for consumers and assure secure food
supply at home and abroad. It is critical that an effective quality
inspection and assurance system be implemented for food crops
throughout the handling steps between harvest and retail. While
automated quality inspection systems are currently used in many pickle
processing facilities, there exists considerable room for improving
current technologies and developing new and more efficient sensors and
automated inspection methods for pickling vegetables. Methods currently
available for measuring and grading quality of cucumbers and other
vegetables remain ineffective and 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 pickling cucumbers and pickles
rapidly and accurately for internal and external quality
characteristics so that they 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.
The USDA/ARS Sugarbeet and Bean Research Unit at East Lansing,
Michigan provides national leadership in research and development of
innovative technologies and systems for assessing and assuring quality
and marketability of tree fruits and pickling vegetables and enhancing
production efficiency. It 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 spectral scattering technology for assessing the
texture and flavor of fruits, a portable fruit firmness tester, and an
optical property analyzing system for fruits and vegetables. Recently,
an advanced hyperspectral imaging system was developed for automated
detection of quality/defect of pickling cucumbers and pickles. 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.
Therefore, it is critical that additional resources be provided to
support and expand the existing program to effectively address the
technological needs for the pickling industry.
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 5 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, and construction
of the initial phase of the greenhouse complex was completed in early
fall 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 an
estimated $9.2 million is still needed to design and construct the
final phases of the planned 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 5 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current status Funds needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction:
Greenhouse design.............. Needed............. $700,000
Greenhouse construction........ Needed............. 8,500,000
------------------------------------
Design and Construction ................... 9,200,000
Funds Needed.
====================================
New scientific staff needed: plant Needed............. 500,000
pathologist (cucumber disease).
------------------------------------
New Funds Needed........... ................... 500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Fermentation Laboratory, Raleigh, North Carolina
The current funding for the laboratory is $1,264,000. To carry out
the new research initiatives to reduce the energy and water use
required to produce safe, high quality products 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 $300,000 in fiscal year 2011. 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............. $316,000
Chemist............................ Active............. 316,000
Food Technologist/Biochemist....... Active............. 316,000
Microbial Physiologist............. Active............. 316,000
Fiscal Year 2011 Post-doctoral and Needed............. 300,000
Predoctoral Research Associate.
---------------
Total Funding Required....... ................... 1,564,000
---------------
Presidential Budget (Fiscal Year ................... 1,264,000
2011).
---------------
New Funds Needed................... ................... 300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vegetable Crops Research Laboratory Unit, Madison, Wisconsin
Current base funding for three scientists is $889,600, 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 $270,400 to fully
fund the scientists and support staff in fiscal year 2011, 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
Geneticist......................... Active............. 320,000
Geneticist......................... Active............. 320,000
Fiscal Year 2011 Post-doctoral or Needed............. 200,000
Predoctoral Research Associates.
---------------
Total Funding Required....... ................... 1,160,000
---------------
Presidential Budget (Fiscal Year ................... 889,600
2011).
---------------
New Funds Needed................... ................... 270,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sugar Beet and Bean Research Unit, East Lansing, Michigan
Current base funding for the location is $190,000, which is far
short of the funding level needed to carry out research on inspection,
sorting and grading of pickling cucumbers and other vegetable crops to
assure the processing and keeping quality of pickled products. An
increase of $550,000 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............. $190,000
Research Engineer.................. Needed............. 550,000
---------------
Total Funding Required....... ................... 740,000
---------------
Current Funding.................... ................... 190,000
---------------
New Funds Needed................... ................... 550,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 subcommittee, 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.
The Resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association
during its 85th Annual Meeting in Bossier City, Louisiana on February
18, 2010, and represent the combined concerns of the citizens of the
Red River Basin Area as they pertain to the goals of the Association.
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 alternate energy sources; 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.
We want to express our appreciation for the funding levels provided
by Congress in the fiscal year 2010 Appropriation Bill. Your plus up
over the Administration's budget of $20.4 million in Conservation
Operations was welcomed. More important was the funding you provided
for Watershed & Flood Prevention Operations ($30 million) and RC&D
($50.7 million) when the Administration `zeroed' out those programs.
What concerns us the most is the lack of water resource planning
funding. If we are experiencing serious water issues across our Nation
today what will we face when our Nation's population is expected to
double in 50 years? As urban development spreads out into our urban
areas we will lose water resources and agricultural lands. What will we
do for drinking water and irrigation? If we started planning for this
scenario today we would not be prepared in 50 years. No one is planning
or preparing for this expected growth and future demands on our water
needs. Water and food supply are a matter of national security. It is
inconceivable that we would consider outsourcing our water and food,
more than we do now. We request that Congress fund the NRCS planning
accounts and reenergize the planning process to preserve our national
independence on our food and water resources.
1. Conservation Operations.--This account has been in steady
decline, in real dollars, over the past several years. 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 and we acknowledge and appreciate that Congress
did increase this account in fiscal year 2010 from fiscal year 2009.
We request a total of $950 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.
2. Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (Public Law 566 and
534).--There is no doubt that this is a Federal responsibility, in
conjunction with a local sponsor. This program addresses all watersheds
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 2010 ($5.7 m more than fiscal year 2009). For
every $1 spent, the Nation realizes $2 in benefits. Congress must take
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 $75 million be appropriated for Watershed Operations Programs,
Public Law 534 ($20 million) and Public Law 566 ($55 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.
a. Red Bayou Irrigation Project, LA.--This project has received
funding from the 2010 `Stimulus' package. The State of Louisiana
provided the required cost share ($1.1 million) to move forward with
construction. It is not only a very important irrigation project for NW
Louisiana, but will serve as a model for similar projects throughout
the State and along the Red River in Arkansas.
b. 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 2011.
3. 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.
Past Administration budgets have neglected the safety and well
being of our community needs and recommended minimum funding for this
program. Appropriations have been 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.
4. Watershed Survey and Planning.--In fiscal year 2006, $6.1
million was appropriated to support this extremely important community
program. However, no funding has been provided since fiscal year 2007.
NRCS has become a facilitator for the different community interest
groups, State and Federal agencies. In our States such studies are
helping identify resource needs and solutions where populations are
encroaching into rural areas. The Administration 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 2010 appropriation bill.
a. 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.
b. 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.
5. Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D).--This has
traditionally been a well-received program by the Administration, but
not last year. The budget proposal zeroed 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. Congress showed how important they
believe this program is by providing $50.7 million in fiscal year 2010.
We do not agree with the current Administration eliminating this
program and request Congress continue its support for this program.
We request that $51 million be appropriated for this program, at
the same level as in fiscal year 2010.
6. 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. 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 eliminated.
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.
Grant Disclosure: The Red River Valley Association has not received
any Federal grant, sub-grant or contract during the current fiscal year
or either of the two previous fiscal years.
______
Prepared Statement of the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization
This statement is being submitted on behalf of the following
representatives of government agencies, water providers, and
organizations with a stake in Colorado's water future: Nolan Doesken,
Colorado State Climatologist; Eric Kuhn, General Manager, Colorado
River Water Conservation District; David Little, Director of Planning,
Denver Water; Brett Gracely, Water Resource Planning Supervisor,
Colorado Springs Utilities; Brad Udall, Director, CU-NOAA Western Water
Assessment; Stephen Saunders, President, Rocky Mountain Climate
Organization; Joel Smith, Principal, Stratus Consulting; Drew Beckwith,
Water Policy Analyst, Western Resource Advocates; and Drew Peternell,
Director, Trout Unlimited's Colorado Water Project.
Specifically, we respectfully request your consideration of
inclusion of additional fiscal year 2011 funding for the following
programs:
--Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Snowpack Telemetry Program;
--Additional monitoring stations--$2,275,000, and for fiscal year
2012 and years beyond, $260,000 per year for recurring
annual operations and maintenance costs.
--Soil moisture and sublimation instrumentation--$650,000, and for
fiscal year 2012 and years beyond, $520,000 per year for
recurring annual operations and maintenance costs.
--Department of Agriculture, Colorado Agricultural Meteorological
Network (CoAgMet) evapotranspiration monitoring, line item to
be determined--$335,000 and for fiscal year 2012 and years
beyond, $195,000 per year for recurring annual operations and
maintenance costs.
Since 2007 our organizations, and others in Colorado, have been
collaborating on strategies to prepare for the changes that scientists
have identified as the likely impacts of climate change on Colorado's
most critical natural resource--the water resources that enable our
people, commerce, and natural systems to thrive. Key to our ability in
Colorado, and across the West, to understand and adapt to the effects
of climate change on water supplies will be good information on what
changes are occurring with respect to such key elements as
temperatures, precipitation, snowpack, the timing of snowmelt,
streamflows, and soil moisture. The data collection systems that
currently exist to gather this information were not designed to track
changes in climate, and so are incomplete to meet today's needs. Many
of the programs for collecting and disseminating these data have
deteriorated or have been diverted over the last quarter-century, with
the result that many long-term climate and streamflow records have been
interrupted.
The additional climate/water monitoring needs we identify are for
systems in Colorado and the Upper Colorado River Basin, but they are
needed for national reasons, as well. The State of Colorado supplies 70
to 75 percent of the water in the Colorado River. About 30 million
Americans, or about one-tenth of all Americans, living in seven
States--Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and
Wyoming--depend on Colorado River water. The largest city in each of
those seven States depends on Colorado River water. Twenty-two of the
32 largest cities in those seven States depend on Colorado River water.
Fifteen percent of the Nation's crops and 13 percent of the Nation's
livestock depend on Colorado River water. Some of the Nation's most
spectacular natural resources, including our largest concentration of
national parks, depend on Colorado River water.
Yet scientists consistently tell us that a changed climate is
likely to reduce the flow of the Colorado River. As this is already the
most over-allocated river in the Nation, this presents a challenge of
great national significance.
No less important to those who depend on them are the other rivers
that originate in Colorado, including the Rio Grande, Arkansas, and
North and South Platte rivers, which supply additional millions of
Americans not just in our State but in downstream States. These rivers,
too, may be substantially affected by the hotter and drier conditions
projected to result in the interior West from a changed climate.
To be able to address these challenges, we have a pressing,
critical need to know more than we now do about our water resources and
how they may be affected over time. That is the purpose of our proposal
for relatively modest increases in these key budget accounts:
--Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), Snow Telemetry (SNOTEL) stations
--NRCS installs, operates, and maintains SNOTEL--an extensive,
automated system designed to collect snowpack and related
climatic data in the Western United States and Alaska.
There is widespread desire for more SNOTEL stations in the
Upper Colorado River basin, to provide a stronger basis for
seasonal runoff forecasts. Climate change and its effects
on the distribution of snow pack with elevation is also a
concern among water managers in the basin. The installation
of SNOTEL stations to provide a transect across the
topographic gradient is required to better understand this
phenomenon. While there have been some new installations
made recently in watersheds of the Blue, Fraser, and
Gunnison Rivers, an additional 65 stations are needed in
the Upper Colorado River Basin to augment the existing 117
stations.
Our funding request: SNOTEL stations cost approximately $35,000
to install, and $4,000 per year thereafter to operate and
maintain. Our fiscal year 2011 request is for $2,275,000 to
fund station installation costs, and for fiscal year 2012
and years beyond, $260,000 per year for annual recurring
operations and maintenance costs.
--There is also a widespread perception among water managers that
seasonal runoff volumes in recent years have not been
commensurate with observed snow pack accumulations.
Consequently, there is a desire for greater insight into
the physical processes governing the fate of the snow pack,
with particular interest in sublimation and soil moisture
as potential explanatory factors. Unfortunately, these
processes are observed to a very limited extent, leading to
the suggestion that SNOTEL stations be fitted with
additional instrumentation to measure soil moisture and
atmospheric variables governing sublimation (radiation,
wind, humidity, etc).
Our funding request: Cost of installation of these instruments
runs around $10,000 per site. While O&M of soil moisture
instruments is not high, the atmospheric sensors do require
significant ongoing care. The estimated cost to maintain
SNOTEL stations with these additional instruments is $8,000
per year. Our fiscal year 2011 request is for $650,000 to
fund installation of instruments, and for fiscal year 2012
and years beyond, $520,000 per year to fund recurring
annual operations and maintenance costs.
--Department of Agriculture, Colorado Agricultural Meteorological
Network (CoAgMet) evapotranspiration monitoring, line item to
be determined
This request falls outside of the auspices of the Upper
Colorado River Basin, but is critical for ensuring adequate
climate monitoring over Colorado's agricultural lands. In
collaboration with several Federal, State and local
organizations, CoAgMet was established as a specialized
monitoring network 20 years ago. CoAgMet currently consists of
60 stations and is designed to provide meteorological and
climatological information most needed for agricultural
production, research and planning. This network is particularly
well suited for estimating and tracking evapotranspiration (ET)
from irrigated croplands. With nearly 20 years of data, the
network is just now getting to the point where analyses to
detect trends are feasible. Projected changes in Colorado
temperatures will likely cause changes in ET and it is critical
that we have the capabilities to track this over time.
Colorado State government's ongoing budget challenges are
forcing it to downsize this network by as much as 50 percent by
the end of 2010. This is a very serious matter. Prior to the
economic downturn, there was an identified need for 22
additional observing sites in eastern Colorado plus six sites
in the irrigated valleys of western Colorado to better track
climatic conditions (wind, humidity, solar energy, soil
temperature, etc.) affecting agriculture. The cost of
purchasing and installing a new station is approximately
$10,000. Annual maintenance costs are $2,000-$2,500/year per
station depending on location. There is also an interest in
soil moisture monitoring over Colorado's dryland agricultural
areas. Instrumentation could be added to the CoAgMet stations
in non-irrigated environments to meet this need at a cost of
$2,500 per site.
Our funding request: Our fiscal year 2011 request to complete
the CoAgMet network is $335,000 ($280,000 for hardware and
installation of new stations, plus $55,000 for soil moisture
instrumentation in the 22 new stations in eastern Colorado).
For fiscal year 2012 and years beyond, our request is for
$195,000 per year in recurring annual operations and
maintenance costs.
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these requests further,
and stand ready to supply additional information as needed.
______
Letter From the San Diego County Water Authority
March 26, 2010.
Hon. Herb Kohl,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for Fiscal Year 2011 Federal Funding of At Least $20
Million for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Environmental
Quality Incentives Program for the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program
Dear Chairman Kohl: Your support is needed to secure adequate
funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program for fiscal year 2011. This program has
implemented important salinity control projects for the Colorado River
since 1974, benefiting water users from seven States through more
efficient water management and reduced salinity concentrations in
Colorado River water. To continue this work, the Water Authority urges
the USDA's salinity control program be funded at least $20 million for
fiscal year 2011.
The Colorado River is the primary source of drinking water for more
than 3 million people in San Diego County. Excess salinity causes
economic damages in the San Diego region worth millions of dollars
annually. It also hinders local water agency efforts to stretch limited
supplies by recycling and reusing water. The local impacts of excess
salinity include:
--reduced crop yields for farmers, who produce more than $1 billion
of agricultural products in the San Diego region;
--the reduced useful life of commercial and residential water pipe
systems, water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes
washers, and dishwashers;
--the increased household use of expensive bottled water and water
softeners;
--increased water treatment facility costs;
--difficulty meeting Federal and California wastewater discharge
requirements; and
--fewer opportunities for water recycling due to excess salt in the
product water, which limits usefulness for commercial and
agricultural irrigation.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control program has proven to be
a very cost-effective approach to mitigate the impacts of increased
salinity in the Colorado River. Continued Federal funding of this
important program is essential. The Colorado River is the single most
important source of water for the San Diego region, as well as the rest
of the seven-State Colorado River Basin. Maintenance of the river's
water quality through an effective salinity control program is an
investment that avoids millions of dollars in economic damages caused
by excess salinity.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council has
recommended that the USDA salinity control effort be funded at least
$20.0 million annually. The Water Authority supports the Forum's
recommendation and urges this Subcommittee to support this level of
funding for 2011. The Water Authority would appreciate your assistance
in securing adequate funding for this important effort.
Sincerely,
Maureen A. Stapleton,
General Manager.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society for Women's Health Research (SWHR)
On the behalf of the Society for Women's Health Research (SWHR) and
the Women's Health Research Coalition (WHRC), we are pleased to submit
testimony in support of increased funding for the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to $2,857 billion for fiscal year 2011, and
specifically support increased funding for the Office of Women's Health
(OWH), a critical focal point on women's health within the Agency.
Founded in 1990, SWHR 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
exclusively, disproportionately, or differently than men. SWHR
advocates increased funding for research on women's health; encourages
the study of sex differences that may affect the prevention, diagnosis
and treatment of disease; promotes the inclusion of women in medical
research studies; and informs women, providers, policy makers and media
about contemporary women's health issues.
In 1999, the WHRC was established by SWHR to give a voice to
scientists and researchers from across the country that are concerned
and committed to improving women's health research. WHRC 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.
SWHR and WHRC are committed to advancing the health status of women
through the discovery of new and useful scientific knowledge.
Appropriate funding of the FDA by Congress is critical for the Agency
to function and to assure the American public of the safety of its food
and drugs. Good investments have been made in recent years that are
helping to restore the FDA's resources; however, the FDA is endeavoring
to catch up after years of flat funding to meet the needs of scientific
growth, innovation and development, and adequate food and drug
protection. Further, FDA is struggling to catch up to present-day needs
in the area of information technology (IT).
Past investments in the FDA, as well as the budget increases
secured under Representative DeLauro's leadership, have undoubtedly
helped the FDA continue to meet--to varying degrees--the numerous
responsibilities assigned to it. What remain to be seen are what
advancements in medicine and what protections to the Nation's food and
drug supply are jeopardized by the FDA budget barely matching inflation
year after year. With over 80 percent of FDA's budget going toward its
scientists and staff, one must consider the impact of not investing in
the human collateral that makes the FDA and the United States the world
leaders in drug and food safety. Until sound investments are made in
the FDA's scientists, training, and infrastructure, it will be forced
to keep ``hanging on by its fingernails''--acting in a reactionary way
against the threats to food and drug security and lacking the resources
to foster a new culture of proactive science and research leadership.
SWHR recognizes the need to control discretionary spending;
however, the strength of the FDA must be a public priority. The 6
percent increase in President Obama's budget request is a good start,
but SWHR urges Congress to provide the FDA with an increase of $495
million over fiscal year 2010 and $350 million more than the
Administration's request, bringing the FDA's fiscal year 2011 budget to
a proposed $2,857 billion. This funding increase will allow the FDA to
continue rebuilding its infrastructure and addressing the shortage of
resources was well as building on the catch up effort on IT systems
that will match the needs of the industries it is regulating and
expectations of the American public. From promoting wellness and
meeting healthcare needs to protecting the food supply, the FDA touches
each American each day. We risk jeopardizing the important work they do
through underfunding.
Further, key investment that must be taken into account at the FDA
is the Office of Women's Health (OWH). OWH's women's health programs,
often conducted with the Agency centers, are vital to maintaining focus
on women's health within the FDA. They are critical to improved care
and increased awareness of disease-specific impacts to women. For
example, OWH ensures 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. To address OWH's
growing list of priorities, the Society recommends that Congress
support an additional $2 million budget for OWH for fiscal year 2011
within the budget for the FDA. In addition, we further recommend that
the current budget levels not only increase in the future, but should
never be less than the $6 million that the office currently receives.
fda information technology systems
The FDA is tasked with guarding the safety, efficacy, and security
of human drugs, biological products, and medical devices. However, as
was stated by the 2007 Science Board Report, requested by former
Commissioner von Eschenbach, FDA's IT systems were inefficient and
incapable of handling the current demands placed on the Agency, thus
preventing the FDA from fulfilling its mission. Equipment still remains
outdated, often unsupported by maintenance, and regularly breaks down.
Some computer experts are being brought back out of retirement to
service the systems now too old to be corrected by current FDA
employees. FDA's IT system, a system which needs to function 24/7,
simply cannot keep up with current scientific data, new technology, and
technological advances (such as nanotechnology), as well as market
trends. This will only continue to worsen.
Additionally, the on-going discussion on an overhaul of the
Nation's healthcare system again brought to light poor IT systems as a
recurring source of medical errors and financial and personal losses.
Comprehensive or piecemeal reform efforts are likely to include further
advances to electronic health records and other innovations which will
place an even greater burden on the FDA, among other agencies, to
function within those advanced IT systems and networks.
The antiquated nature of the current IT systems also makes the FDA
unable to keep up appropriately in safety analyses, tracking the
natural history and disease models for rare disorders, or accessing
huge amounts of clinical data and emerging trends. The creation of a
central database would provide a centralized repository for all
relevant facts about a certain product including where, when and how
the product was made. Such a uniform and centralized database will be
relevant for all information stored across agencies, so as to maximize
functionality not only of FDA's data but for any other research and
analysis needed by the American public for safety and surveillance.
Currently, the FDA receives large volumes of information for review
and evaluation in applications from drug manufacturers. FDA reviewers
must manually comb through the submitted drug trial reports and digital
data in as many as 12 different formats when evaluating a new drug's
safety and effectiveness. Frequently, reviewers must handpick data
manually from stacks of paper reports and craft their own data
comparisons. This process is time consuming, makes the review process
less efficient, more error-prone, and ultimately 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. It is time Congress
enables the FDA to utilize up-to-date information technology.
SWHR believes that the FDA and it's Office of Women's Health should
be able to track women or men and other subpopulations in all clinical
trials being monitored and they are currently not able to do so. The
FDA should be able to know how many women are in studies, both by
recruitment and retention rates. This should be an immediate goal of
any new IT system upgrade at the FDA, in conjunction with the adoption
of uniform data standards from which to pull the data and as part of
the shift to a fully automated, electronic filing system.
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 SWHR 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. OWH also monitors women's health
priorities, providing both leadership and an integrated approach to
problem solving across the FDA. Despite inadequate funding, OWH
continues to provide women with invaluable tools for their health.
Each year OWH, with little difficulty, exhausts its tiny budget.
OWH's pamphlets are the most requested of any documents at the
government printing facility in Colorado. In 2009, more than 5.2
million pamphlets were distributed to women across the Nation,
including target populations such as Hispanic communities, seniors and
low-income citizens. Since its creation, OWH has awarded $21.7 million
in research funds. Last year, two of OWH's intramural research projects
were recognized by the Senate Excellence in Aging Research Committee
Report as exemplary research performed by departments and agencies
within the Federal government that seeks to advance the well-being of
older Americans. Despite the $1 million increase the office received
last year, additional funding is needed so OWH may continue its present
work on current projects, but also expand and develop future projects.
It is absolutely critical for Congress to take action now to help
preserve the vital functions of OWH and to ensure that its small budget
is dedicated to the resource needs of the office and to the projects,
programs, and research it funds.
Since its beginning, OWH has funded high quality scientific
research to serve as the foundation for FDA activities that improve
women's health. Since 1994, OWH has funded approximately 195 research
projects with approximately $15.7 million in intramural grants,
supporting projects within the FDA that address knowledge gaps or set
new directions for sex and gender research. All contracts and grants
are awarded through a competitive process. A large number of these
studies are published and appear in peer reviewed journals.
As part of its educational outreach efforts to consumers, OWH works
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
advertisers.
Further, OWH's Web site serves as a vital tool for consumers and is
regularly updated to include new and important health information. The
Web site provides free, downloadable fact sheets on over 100 different
illnesses, diseases, and health related issues for women. OWH has
created medication charts on several chronic diseases, listing all the
medications that are prescribed and available for each disease. This
information is ideal for women to use in talking to their doctors,
pharmacists, or nurses about their treatment options. They have also
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. In keeping with current
technology trends, OWH has used social media networks like twitter to
reach out to consumers.
OWH and Sex Differences Research
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 many in the scientific
community view the sexes, with even more information forthcoming as a
result of the sequencing of the X chromosome. The evidence is
overwhelming, and as researchers continue to find more and more complex
biological differences, they gain a greater understanding of the
biological and physiological composition of both sexes.
Much of what is known about sex differences is the result of
observational studies, or is descriptive evidence from studies that
were not designed to obtain a careful comparison between females and
males. SWHR has long recognized that the inclusion of women in study
populations by itself was insufficient to address the inequities in our
knowledge of human biology and medicine, and that only by the careful
study of sex differences at all levels, from genes to behavior, would
science achieve the goal of optimal healthcare for both men and women.
Many sex differences are already present at birth, whereas others
develop later in life. These differences play an important role in
disease susceptibility, prevalence, time of onset, and severity and
have documented roles in cancer, obesity, heart disease, immune
dysfunction, mental health disorders, and other illnesses.
Physiological differences and hormonal fluctuations may also play a
role in the rate of drug absorption, distribution, metabolism,
elimination as well as ultimate effectiveness of response in females as
opposed to males. This vital research is supported and encouraged by
the OWH, working directly with the various centers to advance the
science in this area, collaborating on programs, projects, and
research.
Our country's drug development process has succeeded in delivering
new and better targeted medications to ensure the health of both women
and men. However, the requirement that the data acquired during
research of a new drug's safety and effectiveness be analyzed as a
function of sex is generally not enforced. 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)
are often not explored, or female enrollment in studies is too low to
adequately power results, and as a result this vital information
continues to not be included in prescription drug labels and other
patient educational and instructional materials.
SWHR believes that the opportunity to present this information to
consumers exists now. Sex differences data discovered from clinical
trials can be directly relayed to the medical community and to
consumers through appropriate education, drug labeling and packaging
inserts, and other forms of alerts directed to key audiences. As part
of advancing the need to analyze and report sex differences, SWHR
encourages the FDA to continue addressing the need for accurate, sex-
specific drug labeling to better serve male and female patients, as
well as to ensure that appropriate data analysis of post-market
surveillance reporting for these differences is placed in the hands of
physicians and ultimately the patient.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we thank you and this Committee for
its strong record of support for the FDA and women's health, as well as
your commitment to OWH. We recommend that you exceed the
Administration's proposed increase, appropriating $495 million more
than fiscal year 2010, for an overall fiscal year 2011 budget for the
FDA of $2,857 billion, overall, so that it may dramatically improve
upon current operations while also rebuilding its IT infrastructure.
Secondly, we urge you to allocate $8 million for the Office of Women's
Health for fiscal year 2011, 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 stronger and
healthier future for all Americans.
______
Prepared Statement of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
As the largest animal protection organization in the country, we
appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to your Subcommittee on
fiscal year 2011 items of great importance to The Humane Society of the
United States (HSUS) and its 11 million supporters nationwide. In this
testimony, we request the following amounts for the following USDA
accounts:
--FSIS/Humane Methods of Slaughter Act Enforcement--$2 million of HAT
funds to hire/train mobile review team to conduct unscheduled
audits and undercover surveillance to assess compliance with
HMSA, and language calling for establishment of ombudsman to
help ensure that inspectors can carry out their
responsibilities--both food safety and humane slaughter--
without undue interference.
--FSIS/Horse Slaughter--language mirroring fiscal year 2010
provision.
--APHIS/Horse Protection Act Enforcement--$900,000.
--APHIS/Animal Welfare Act Enforcement--$22,333,000.
--APHIS/Investigative and Enforcement Services--$14,213,000.
--OIG/including Animal Fighting Enforcement--$90,000,000.
--NIFA (formerly CSREES)/Veterinary Student Loan Forgiveness--
$5,000,000.
--APHIS/Emergency Management Systems/Disaster Planning for Animals--
$1,017,000.
--APHIS/Wildlife Services--funding limitation on use of two
particularly toxic poisons.
--NAL/Animal Welfare Information Center--$1,978,400.
We thank you for your outstanding support during recent years for
improved enforcement of key animal welfare laws by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and we urge you to sustain this effort in fiscal year
2011. Your leadership is making a difference in helping to protect the
welfare of millions of animals across the country. As you know, better
enforcement will also benefit people by decreasing: (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
2011:
food safety and inspection service/humane methods of slaughter act
(hmsa) enforcement
We request that $2,000,000 of the Humane Animal Tracking funding be
directed to hire a mobile review team to focus on strengthening HMSA
enforcement, and that language be included calling for the
establishment of an ombudsman. We greatly appreciated the committee's
inclusion of $2 million in fiscal year 2009 to address severe
shortfalls in USDA oversight of humane handling rules for animals at
slaughter facilities, oversight that is important not only for animal
welfare but also for food safety. While the Agency has taken some steps
on this front, serious problems remain. For example, video taken by a
non-profit organization during a 2009 undercover investigation revealed
atrocities including repeated electric shocks, kicking, cutting off a
hoof and partial decapitation of conscious baby calves. The footage
also revealed a USDA inspector showing callous disregard for blatant
cruelty, as he watched a calf being skinned alive and commented that
another inspector would shut the plant down, but he allowed the abuse
to continue. While that inspector has since been fired, to address
remaining weaknesses in the inspection regime, we request that $2
million be allocated out of the $3 million in Humane Animal Tracking
(HAT) funding for the purpose of hiring and training a mobile review
team to conduct unscheduled audits and undercover surveillance focused
on assessing compliance with humane handling rules of live animals as
they arrive and are offloaded and handled in pens, chutes, and stunning
areas.
We also urge the committee to include language calling on the USDA
to establish an ombudsman to provide inspectors with an avenue to take
their concerns and grievances, and help ensure that they are able to
carry out their responsibilities--both food safety and humane
slaughter--without undue interference. A whistleblower, a current FSIS
veterinarian who has served the Agency for 18 years, testified at a
recent House Oversight subcommittee hearing that a core problem with
HMSA enforcement involves high-level supervisors putting pressure on
inspectors below them to not rigorously enforce humane standards--
discouraging them from reporting violations, rewriting and watering
down their reports, second-guessing their first-hand observations,
insisting that actions comport with humane standards even when they run
contrary to the guidelines of leading animal science expert Dr. Temple
Grandin (whose expertise is well-respected by industry), and
reprimanding and punishing them for taking enforcement actions. Even
some District Veterinary Medical Specialists--the very positions funded
by Congress to focus on ensuring compliance with the Humane Methods of
Slaughter Act--have engaged in this undermining of inspectors. For the
humane slaughter law to be properly enforced, personnel at all levels--
and certainly those in the supervisory ranks--must take this mission
seriously. Ideally, this ombudsman would be independent from FSIS,
reporting directly to the Under Secretary for Food Safety, or
alternatively could perhaps be in the Office of Program Evaluation,
Enforcement & Review (OPEER) that helps ensure the effectiveness of
FSIS.
horse slaughter
We request inclusion of the same language barring USDA from the
expenditure of funds for horse slaughter inspection as the Committee
included in the fiscal year 2010 omnibus. This provision is vital to
prevent renewed horse slaughter activity in this country.
aphis/horse protection act (hpa) enforcement
We request that you support the President's request of $900,000 for
strengthened enforcement of the Horse Protection Act. Congress enacted
the HPA in 1970 to make illegal the abusive practice of ``soring,'' in
which unscrupulous trainers use a variety of methods to inflict pain on
sensitive areas of Tennessee Walking Horses' hooves and legs to
exaggerate their high-stepping gait and gain unfair competitive
advantage at horse shows. For example, caustic chemicals--such as
mustard oil, diesel fuel, and kerosene--are painted on the lower front
legs of a horse, then the legs are wrapped for days in plastic wrap and
tight bandages to ``cook'' the chemicals deep into the horse's flesh,
and then heavy chains are attached to slide up and down the horse's
sore legs. Additional tactics include inserting foreign objects such as
metal screws or acrylic between a heavy stacked shoe and the horse's
hoof; pressure shoeing--cutting a horse's hoof down to the sensitive
live tissue to cause extreme pain every time the horse bears weight on
the hoof; and applying painful chemicals such as salicylic acid to
slough off scarred tissue, in an attempt to disguise the sored areas.
Though soring has been illegal for 40 years, this cruel practice
continues unabated by the well-intentioned but seriously understaffed
APHIS inspection program. Several horse show industry groups, animal
protection groups, and the key organization of equine veterinarians
have called for funding increases to enable the USDA to do a better job
enforcing this law. To meet the goal of the HPA, Animal Care inspectors
must be present at more shows. Exhibitors who sore their horses go to
great lengths to avoid detection, even fleeing a show when USDA
inspectors arrive. But with current funding, Animal Care is able to
attend only about 6 percent of the more than 500 Tennessee Walking
Horse shows held annually. An appropriation at the requested level will
help provide for additional inspectors, training, security (to address
threats of violence against inspectors), and advanced detection
equipment (thermography and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
machines).
aphis/animal welfare act (awa) enforcement
We request that you support the President's request of $22,333,000
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 12,000 sites,
including commercial breeding facilities, laboratories, zoos, circuses,
and airlines, to ensure compliance with AWA standards. Under the 2008
Farm Bill, Congress established a new responsibility for this
division--to enforce a ban on imports from foreign puppy mills where
puppies are mass produced under inhumane conditions and forced to
endure harsh long-distance transport. Animal Care currently has 115
inspectors (with 2 vacancies to be filled), compared to 64 inspectors
at the end of the 1990s. An appropriation at the requested level would
maintain fiscal year 2010 funding with a modest increase to cover pay
costs and help ensure that the Agency can provide adequate oversight of
the increasing number of licensed/registered facilities.
aphis/investigative and enforcement services
We request that you support the President's request of $14,213,000
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 Federal animal welfare laws and the initiation of
appropriate enforcement actions. The volume of animal welfare cases is
rising significantly as new facilities become licensed and registered.
An appropriation at the requested level would maintain fiscal year 2009
funding with a modest increase to cover pay costs.
office of inspector general/animal fighting enforcement
We request that you support the President's request of $90,000,000
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, established felony penalties in
2007, and further strengthened the law as part of the 2008 Farm Bill.
We are pleased that USDA is taking seriously its responsibility to
enforce this law, working with State and local agencies to complement
their efforts and address these barbaric practices, in which animals
are drugged to heighten their aggression and forced to keep fighting
even after they've suffered grievous injuries. 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 a number
of 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 and the Horse Protection Act.
national institute of food and agriculture/veterinary student loan
forgiveness
We request that you support the President's request of $5,000,000
to continue the implementation of the National Veterinary Medical
Service Act (Public Law 108-161). This program received $2,950,000 in
fiscal year 2009, $4,800,000 in fiscal year 2010, and was projected to
need $5,000,000 in its third year under the CBO score accompanying
authorization. We appreciate that Congress is working to address the
critical shortage of veterinarians practicing in rural and inner-city
areas, as well as in government positions at FSIS and APHIS. A 2009
Government Accountability Office report enumerating the challenges
facing veterinary medicine identified that an inadequate number of
veterinarians to meet national needs is among the foremost challenges.
A 2006 study 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. Having adequate veterinary care is a core animal welfare
concern. To ensure adequate oversight of humane handling and food
safety rules, FSIS must be able to fill vacancies in inspector
positions. Veterinarians also support our Nation's defense against
bioterrorism (the Centers for Disease Control estimate that 75 percent
of potential bioterrorism agents are zoonotic--transmitted from animals
to human). They are also on the front lines addressing public health
problems such as those associated with pet overpopulation, parasites,
rabies, chronic wasting disease, and bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(``mad cow'' disease). Veterinary school graduates face a crushing debt
burden of $130,000 on average, with an average starting salary of
$65,000. 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.
aphis/emergency management systems/disaster planning for animals
We request that you support the President's request of $1,017,000
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 are used for staff time
and resources to support State and local governments' and humane
organizations' efforts to plan for protection of people with animals,
and to enable the Agency to participate, in partnership with FEMA, in
the National Response Plan without jeopardizing other Animal Care
programs.
aphis/wildlife services (ws)
We also hope the committee will consider a funding limitation on
two particularly cruel, indiscriminate wildlife control methods used by
the WS division to kill more than 13,000 animals every year: the
toxicants sodium cyanide (delivered via small explosive devices known
as M-44s) and sodium fluoroacetate (commonly known as Compound 1080).
Not only are these two substances undeniably cruel to animals, they
also pose an unnecessary threat to human health and public safety. The
FBI has declared that both Compound 1080 and sodium cyanide are
``highly toxic pesticides judged most likely to be used by terrorists
or for malicious intent.'' The FBI and the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service have listed Compound 1080 as a substance that may
be sought for use as a possible chemical warfare agent in public water
supplies. As early as 1999, the U.S. Air Force identified Compound 1080
as a likely biological agent. A funding limitation on the use of these
particular methods would not only reduce the number of animals killed
every year and the amount of suffering animals endure as a result of
the continued use of these inhumane methods by WS, it would help
protect homeland security and move WS toward non-lethal wildlife
control methods that are safer, more effective, less expensive, and
more humane. With the most indefensible methods eliminated, there will
be more money for other, more beneficial WS programs.
animal welfare information center (awic)
We request $1,978,400 for AWIC. These funds will enable AWIC to
improve its services as a clearinghouse, training center, and
educational resource to help institutions using animals in research,
testing and teaching comply with the requirements of the AWA, including
consideration of alternatives to minimize or eliminate animal use in
specific research protocols.
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 2011. We are grateful for 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 Humane Society of the United States--Equine
Protection
On behalf of the undersigned animal welfare and horse industry
organizations, with combined supporters exceeding 12 million, we submit
the following testimony seeking an increase in funding for the USDA/
APHIS Horse Protection Program to $900,000, as requested in the
President's budget for fiscal year 2011. This funding is urgently
needed to begin to fulfill the intent of the Horse Protection Act--to
eliminate the cruel practice of soring--by allowing the USDA to
strengthen its enforcement capabilities for this law.
In 1970, Congress passed the Horse Protection Act to end soring,
the intentional infliction of pain to the hooves and legs of a horse to
produce an exaggerated gait, practiced primarily in the Tennessee
Walking Horse show industry.
For example, caustic chemicals--such as mustard oil, diesel fuel,
and kerosene--are painted on the lower front legs of a horse, then the
legs are wrapped for days in plastic wrap and bandages to ``cook'' the
chemicals deep into the horse's flesh. This makes the horse's legs
extremely painful and sensitive, and when ridden, the horse is fitted
with chains that slide up and down the horse's sore legs, forcing him
to produce an exaggerated, high-stepping gait in the show ring.
Additional tactics include inserting foreign objects such as metal
screws or hard acrylic between a heavy stacked shoe and the horse's
hoof; pressure shoeing--cutting a horse's hoof down to the sensitive
live tissue to cause extreme pain every time the horse bears weight on
the hoof; and applying painful chemicals such as salicylic acid to
slough off scarred tissue, in an attempt to remove evidence of soring.
The Horse Protection Act authorizes the USDA to inspect Tennessee
Walking Horses and Racking Horses--in transport to and at shows,
exhibits, auctions and sales--for signs of soring, and to pursue
penalties against violators. Unfortunately, since its inception,
enforcement of the Act has been plagued by underfunding. As a result,
the USDA has never been able to adequately enforce the Act, allowing
this extreme and deliberate cruelty to persist on a widespread basis.
The most effective way to eliminate soring and meet the goals of
the Act is for USDA officials to be present at more shows. However,
limited funds allow USDA attendance at only about 6 percent of
Tennessee Walking Horse shows. So the Agency set up an industry-run
system of certified Horse Industry Organization (HIO) inspection
programs, which are charged with inspecting horses for signs of soring
at the majority of shows. These groups license examiners known as
Designated Qualified Persons (DQPs) to conduct inspections. To perform
this function, they often hire industry insiders who have an obvious
stake in preserving the status quo. Statistics clearly show that when
USDA inspectors are in attendance to oversee shows, the numbers of
noted violations are many times higher than at shows where industry
inspectors alone are conducting the inspections. By all measures, the
overall DQP program has been a failure--the only remedy is to abolish
it or greatly reduce dependence on this conflicted industry-run program
of self-regulation and give USDA the resources it needs to adequately
enforce the Act.
USDA appears to have recently attempted to step up its enforcement
efforts, as evidenced in 2009 by a more than twofold increase over the
previous year in the number of violations cited at the industry's
largest show (the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration).
However, the top three prize winning horses at that show were all found
after their wins to have been in violation of the HPA, and their owners
and trainers were allowed to keep the titles and prizes awarded. Horses
identified as sored at shows also continue to be shown in subsequent
events, and their owners continue to win lucrative prizes. USDA needs
enhanced resources to carry out its responsibilities as Congress, and
the public, expects.
Lack of a consistent presence by USDA officials at Tennessee
Walking Horse events has fostered a cavalier attitude among industry
insiders, who have not stopped their abuse, but have only become more
clandestine in their soring methods. The continued use of soring to
gain an advantage in the show ring has tainted the Tennessee Walking
Horse industry as a whole, and creates an unfair advantage for those
who are willing to break the law in pursuit of victory. Besides the
indefensible suffering of the animals themselves, the continued
acceptance of sored horses in the show ring prevents those with sound
horses from competing fairly for prizes, breeding fees and other
financial incentives, while those horse owners whose horses are sored
may unwittingly suffer property damage and be duped into believing that
their now abused, damaged horses are naturally superior.
Currently, when USDA inspectors arrive at shows, many exhibitors
load up and leave to avoid being caught with sored horses. While USDA
could stop these trailers on the way out, Agency officials have stated
that inspectors are wary of going outside of their designated
inspection area, for fear of harassment and physical violence from
exhibitors. Recently, armed security has been utilized to allow such
inspections, at additional expense to this program. The fact that
exhibitors feel they can intimidate government officials without
penalty is a testament to the inherent shortcomings of the current
system.
In years past, inspections were limited to physical observation and
palpation by the inspector. New technologies, such as thermography and
``sniffer'' devices (gas chromatography/mass spectrometry machines),
have been developed, which can help inspectors identify soring more
effectively and objectively. However, USDA has been unable to purchase
and put enough of this equipment in use in the field, allowing for
industry insiders to continually evade detection. With increased
funding, the USDA could purchase this equipment and train more
inspectors to use it properly, greatly increasing its ability to
enforce the HPA.
The egregious cruelty of soring is not only a concern for animal
protection and horse industry organizations, but also for
veterinarians. In 2008, the American Association of Equine
Practitioners (AAEP) issued a white paper condemning soring, calling it
``one of the most significant welfare issues faced by the equine
industry.'' It called for the abolition of the DQP Program, saying
``the acknowledged conflicts of interest which involve many of them
cannot be reasonably resolved, and these individuals should be excluded
from the regulatory process.'' The AAEP further stated, ``The failure
of the HPA to eliminate the practice of soring can be traced to the
woefully inadequate annual budget of $500,000 allocated to the USDA to
enforce these rules and regulations.''
It is unacceptable that nearly 40 years after passage of the Horse
Protection Act, the USDA still lacks the resources needed to end this
extreme form of abuse. It is time for Congress to give our public
servants charged with enforcing this Act the support and resources they
want and need to fulfill their duty to protect these horses as
effectively and safely as possible.
We appreciate the opportunity to share our views about this serious
problem, and thank you for your consideration of our request.
The Humane Society of the United States.
Friends of Sound Horses, Inc.
Animal Welfare Institute.
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA).
American Horse Protection Association.
American Horse Defense Fund.
Plantation Walking Horses of Maryland.
United Animal Nations.
National Plantation Walking Horse Association.
Plantation Walking Horse Association of California.
United Pleasure Walking Horse Association.
Pennsylvania Pleasure Walking Horse Association.
Gaitway Walking Horse Association.
Mid Atlantic Tennessee Walking Horse Association.
International Pleasure Walking Horse Registry.
Sound Horse Outreach (SHO).
One Horse At a Time, Inc. Horse Rescue.
Northern California Walking Horse Association.
Tennessee Walking Horse Association of Oklahoma.
Pure Pleasure Gaited Horse Association.
United Mountain Horses.
Northwest Gaited Horse Club.
New York State Plantation Walking Horse Club.
______
Prepared Statement of The Wildlife Society
The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to submit
testimony concerning the fiscal year 2011 budgets for the Animal Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS), National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA), and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
The Wildlife Society represents over 9,000 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.
This is a difficult financial year, with many programs across the
board being asked to take significant cuts in appropriations. While
budget cuts may be unavoidable, we urge Congress to remember that many
of the programs funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
play a key role in protecting our natural resources, safeguarding
wildlife and human health, and securing our economy in the face of a
changing climate. And, with the President's focus on addressing climate
change, as well as the potential for climate change and energy
legislation to emerge from Congress, funding for the programs within
USDA that support environmental science, develop mitigation strategies,
and implement conservation measures are more important now than ever
before.
animal and plant health inspection service
Wildlife Services, a unit of APHIS, is responsible for controlling
wildlife damage to agriculture, aquaculture, forest, range, and other
natural resources, monitoring wildlife-borne diseases, and protecting
wildlife at airports. Its activities are based on the principles of
wildlife management and integrated damage management, and are carried
out cooperatively with State fish and wildlife agencies. The
administration's request this year is a $7.69 million decrease from
fiscal year 2010. Such a significant decrease would substantially
reduce funding for State and Federal cooperative wildlife damage
programs across the country; just a few of the programs affected would
be Hawaii Wildlife Operations, Louisiana Rice Damage, and Pennsylvania
Cooperative Livestock Protection. Funding cuts for these programs not
only result in significant ecological damage, but they threaten local
economies as well. TWS recommends that Congress increase the
appropriation for Wildlife Services Operations to $79.9 million; this
amount would continue to provide support for the ongoing programs
funded through the direct appropriations process, and it would as well
as fund necessary safety improvements and cover the programmed pay
costs for operations.
Another key budget line in Wildlife Services is Methods
Development, which funds the National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC).
Much of the newest and most cross-cutting research that is critical to
State wildlife agencies is being performed at the NWRC, and in order
for State wildlife management programs to be the most up-to-date, the
mission of the NWRC must continue. The President's request is currently
a $2.84 million decrease from fiscal year 2010 enacted levels. The
result of this decrease is that programs conducting research into
human-wildlife conflict (Jack Berryman Institute), invasive species and
seed crops (Hilo Hawaii Field Station), and wildlife disease
(Kingsville Texas Field Station) would all be eliminated or severely
reduced. Such a loss could be devastating in this era as human and
wildlife issues are becoming increasingly intertwined. TWS requests
that Congress restore $3.7 million to the Methods Development line to
ensure adequate funding for the National Wildlife Research Center.
Finally, TWS is recommending providing $20.6 million to Veterinary
Services for addressing the import and export of invasive species. The
potential import of exotic diseases, parasites, and vectors into the
United States is a grave threat to human, wildlife, and habitat health
and has the potential to cause incalculable economic damage. To
mitigate this, it is important that APHIS-Veterinary Services is able
to conduct inspections at all U.S. ports. The historic method of
relying on import or user fees is inadequate and varies greatly from
year to year. Also, as wildlife disease continues to spread worldwide,
more exotic species are continually imported, and the number of ports
of entry increase, the resources for inspections are stretched even
further. Therefore, TWS recommends funding $7 million beyond the
Administration's request of $13.6 million, $3 million to support
inspections, and an additional $4 million for surveillance of exotic
parasites, and staffing and operations of offshore disease monitoring
and evaluation.
national institute of food and agriculture
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 than ever today 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 2008 Farm Bill.
The McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Program is 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, privately held forests will increasingly be needed to supplement
supplies, but trees suitable for harvest take decades to produce. 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. We appreciate the over $29 million in funding
allocated in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations and urge that amount
to be increased to $31 million in fiscal year 2011.
natural resources conservation service
The Farm Bill conservation programs are 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 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which
administers many of the Farm Bill conservation programs, is one of the
primary contributors to ensuring that our public and private lands are
made resilient to climate change. NRCS does this through a variety of
programs that are aimed to preserve land, protect water resources, and
mitigate effects of climate change.
The Wildlife Society recommends that the Farm Bill conservation
programs be funded at the levels mandated in the 2008 Farm Bill.
Currently, the Administration's request results in collective program
reductions of about $705 million less than authorized levels. TWS
encourages Congress to restore funding for all conservation programs at
authorized levels. Demand for these programs continues to grow during
this difficult economic climate when more assistance than ever is
needed to address natural resource challenges and conservation goals,
such as climate change, soil quality deficiencies, declining pollinator
health, disease and invasive species, water quality and quantity
issues, as well as degraded, fragmented and lost habitat for fish and
wildlife. We would also like to particularly highlight the Wildlife
Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP), a voluntary program for landowners
who want to improve wildlife habitat on agricultural, nonindustrial,
and Indian land. WHIP plays an important role in protecting and
restoring America's environment, and is doubly important because it
actively engages public participation in conservation. We urge Congress
to fully fund WHIP at $85 million.
farm services administration
We also note that 4 million acres of Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP) contracts have expired, and we recommend that a general sign up
of these 4 million+ acres be added in order to more fully realize the
conservation needs of the Nation. Additionally, the Administration's
budget request, $15 million less than fiscal year 2010, in part
reflects a CRP enrollment projection of 30.2 million acres by the end
of fiscal year 2011, which is 1.8 million acres below the enrollment
authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill. Farmers need CRP to provide
supplemental income, and enrolled lands provide an important source of
fish and wildlife habitat as well as help achieve soil and water
conservation needs. We also recommend that CRP should be funded at a
level that allows for full enrollment of authorized CRP acres.
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 Hon. Joseph Tydings
As the author of the Horse Protection Act (HPA), and on behalf of
Friends of Sound Horses (FOSH), I submit the following testimony
requesting an increase in funding for the USDA/APHIS Horse Protection
Program to $900,000, as requested in the President's fiscal year 2011
budget.
Forty-two years ago while serving in the United States Senate, I
introduced the Horse Protection Act, which was enacted in 1970 with the
assistance of Senator Tom Eagleton of Missouri. As you may have
surmised, I am a horseman. I grew up and worked on a farm in the summer
which still used draft horses. I was in the last horse cavalry unit in
the U.S. Army. I am working hard in Washington, DC to keep honor in
horsemanship by eliminating the cruel and sadistic soring of the
magnificent Tennessee Walking Horses in hopes to bring respect back to
the industry.
Horse soring is the malicious and illegal process of deliberately
causing extreme pain to the legs and hooves of Tennessee Walking Horses
in order to trigger the exaggerated high-stepping gait, known as the
``Big Lick,'' desired during showing. Trainers sore the horses by
applying caustic chemicals, like mustard oil or diesel fuel, to the
horse's legs and hooves and then cover the substances with plastic wrap
to ``cook'' the chemicals into the skin. Trainers have also been known
to use foreign objects, such as bolts, to mechanically sore the horses'
hooves. The practice is savage and wanton and show horses live 24-7 in
the intolerable pain with a lifetime of consequences from the damage
that is inflicted. The HPA made this practice illegal, but much more
must be done to bring an end to soring.
The USDA's funding for HPA enforcement has not increased since
1976, nor has it been adjusted for inflation. Currently, the $500,000
funding limit only allows the USDA to inspect less than 7 percent of
Tennessee Walking Horse shows. Although these inspections can be
effective, this low monitoring rate obviously leaves the majority of
horse shows uninspected. Additionally, independent Horse Industry
Organizations, charged with the task of inspecting shows when the USDA
is unavailable, only report and penalize a small fraction of violations
compared to the USDA. The USDA's inability to sustain a consistent
presence at shows has allowed rampant soring to continue in the
industry.
I believe Congress can play a vital role in ending this extreme
abuse. The most effective way to abolish horse soring is to increase
USDA funding so that it can expand its monitoring and enforcement
efforts. The USDA needs several million dollars a year in order to
effectively inspect all Tennessee Walking Horse shows, and even if a
simple inflation adjustment had been made over the years since
enactment, USDA would have roughly $2.5 million annually to enforce the
Act. I realize times are tough in our struggling economy, but if the
USDA's budget were increased to $900,000, as in the President's budget
request, a signal could be sent to the industry that enforcement
efforts have not stalled. I encourage you to support the enforcement of
the HPA by granting the USDA the resources it needs to successfully
carry out its duties.
Thank you for your consideration in making this funding request a
reality. Simply leaving USDA funding levels for enforcement at its
current level and allowing the industry to continue to govern on its
own, will only exacerbate the problem. I hope Congress will support
this funding to help eradicate this shameful practice and bring honor
and pride back into the Walking Horse industry.
______
Prepared Statement of the Union of Concerned Scientists, et al.
Antibiotic-resistant infections have been identified by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as one of the top public
health challenges in the United States. Massive use of medically
important antibiotics like penicillin and tetracycline in food animal
production is a significant contributor to this problem.\1\ Antibiotic-
resistant pathogens, which are found in and on food animals, can be
transferred to humans though several pathways, including handling of
farm animals,\2\ movement through ground and surface water, and most
commonly on contaminated food.\3\ Animal food products can become
contaminated during slaughter and processing and food and crops can
become contaminated with resistant bacteria in the field or during food
processing. Infections caused by foodborne pathogens are more severe
and more costly to treat than those caused by susceptible bacteria. The
existence of resistant bacteria also means that more cases of infection
will occur than would otherwise be the case.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Silbergeld, Graham, and Price. 2008. ``Industrial food animal
production, antimicrobial resistance, and human health,''Annual Review
of Public Health 29:151-69.
\2\ Akwar et al. 2007. ``Risk factors for antimicrobial resistance
among fecal Escherichia coli from residents on 43 swine farms,''
Microbial Drug Resistance 13(1):69-76.
\3\ WHO. 1997. ``The Medical Impact of Antimicrobial Use in Food
Animals,'' Report of a WHO Meeting. Berlin, Germany, 13-17 October.
whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1997/WHO__EMC__ZOO__97.4.pdf
\4\ Anderson et al. 2003. ``Public Health Consequences of Use of
Antimicrobial Agents in Food Animals in the United States,'' Microbial
Drug Resistance 9(4):373-379. whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1997/
WHO__EMC__ZOO__97.4.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As recently reported in The New York Times, some infections caused
by resistant bacteria now cannot be treated. There simply are no longer
antibiotics that work. There are 5,815 hospitals in the U.S. registered
with the American Hospital Association. The yearly cost associated with
antibiotic-resistant patient infections in one U.S. hospital has been
estimated at $13.5 million.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Roberts, 2009. ``Hospital and Societal Costs of Antimicrobial-
Resistant Infections in a Chicago Teaching Hospital: Implications for
Antibiotic Stewardship,'' Clinical Infectious Diseases 49:1175-84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional research and data are critical to understanding how to
address the public health and food safety concerns associated with such
uses. As you consider fiscal year 2011 appropriations, we would like to
propose three appropriations that will help research, monitor, and find
solutions to the problem of antibiotic resistance. The requests below
are in priority order:
Request #1.--$5 million of funds from the FDA's Transforming Food
Safety Initiative to finish, update, and publish reviews on the safety
of antimicrobials important in human medicine currently used for
nontherapeutic purposes in food-producing animals for their role in the
selection and dissemination of antibiotic-resistant foodborne
pathogens.
Request #2.--$3 million to fund Research and Education Grants for
the Study of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria as authorized in Section
7521 of the 2008 Farm Bill.
Request #3.--$10 million for the FDA/USDA/CDC National
Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) in order to expand
data collection by $3 million beyond current annual funding of
approximately $7 million.
The rationale and background for each of these requests are
detailed below.
Request #1.--$5 million of funds from the FDA's Transforming Food
Safety Initiative to finish, update, and publish reviews on the safety
of antimicrobials important in human medicine currently used for
nontherapeutic purposes in food-producing animals for their role in the
selection and dissemination of antibiotic-resistant foodborne
pathogens.
Requested accompanying report language: In conducting these post-
market safety reviews, the FDA shall use the same standards and
methodology currently used in pre-market safety evaluations. The
Committee directs the FDA to report the findings of the safety reviews
to Congress within 2 years and to include a time line of any regulatory
action steps needed to address drug uses found not to be safe. Congress
directs the FDA immediately to report to Congress on any post-market
safety reviews of animal antimicrobials already completed, but not yet
made public.
Background.--The FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine is
responsible for reviewing the safety of animal drugs, including
antibiotics, and has the authority to approve, withdraw, or restrict
drugs based on their safety. Since 2003, the FDA has required that the
pre-approval safety review for all new antibiotic veterinary drugs
include an evaluation of the likelihood that the proposed drug use in
animals will lead to resistant infections in humans.
Because almost all antibiotics being used for growth promotion and
other nontherapeutic purposes in livestock production were approved by
the FDA before 2003, most have either not undergone reviews with
respect to antibiotic resistance or have undergone reviews that are
inconsistent with current standards. In order to ensure that these
drugs meet current safety standards, it is now critical to conduct
post-market safety reviews of those antibiotic classes important to
human medicine that are also being used for routine nontherapeutic
purposes in animal agriculture.
Seven classes of antibiotics considered by the FDA to be either
critically or highly important for therapy of infectious diseases in
humans are used for nontherapeutic purposes in livestock production.
These are the penicillins, tetracyclines, macrolides, lincosamides,
streptogramins, aminoglycosides, and sulfonamides. Nontherapeutic uses
of these drugs include growth promotion and routine disease prevention
in healthy farm animals.
In 1977 the FDA proposed to withdraw its approval for
nontherapeutic uses of both penicillin \6\ and tetracycline \7\ in food
animals because of then new evidence showing that such uses undercut
the efficacy of human drugs and as such were not safe for humans. The
FDA took no final action on either of these 1977 proposals. In the
interim since the proposed cancellations, the European Union has banned
use of all medically important antibiotics to accelerate the growth of
food animals, and Australia, Japan, and New Zealand do not allow the
use of penicillin and tetracycline as growth promoters.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 42 Fed. Reg. 43770 (August 30, 1977).
\7\ 42 Fed. Reg. 56264 (October 21, 1977).
\8\ General Accounting Office, Antibiotic Resistance, Federal
Agencies Need to Better Focus Efforts to Address Risk to Humans from
Antibiotic Use in Animals (April 2004) at 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citing its still-pending 1977 regulatory proposal, in May 2004 the
FDA wrote to three manufacturers of penicillin for animal use--Alpharma
Inc, Pennfield Oil Company, and Phibro Animal Health--to express its
concerns about their products' ``possible role in the emergence and
dissemination of antimicrobial resistance'' in humans.
In its July 2007 report on the fiscal year 2008 appropriations
bill, the House Committee on Appropriations expressed its concern that
the use of antimicrobials in animals produced for food can also render
less effective critically important human antibiotics, including those
used to treat foodborne illnesses. The Committee was particularly
concerned that the FDA had not finished its review of the safety for
humans of using penicillin nontherapeutically in animal feed and
directed the FDA to finish this review and make it public by June 30,
2008.
In September 2008 the FDA told Congress that it had completed its
review of the ``scientific literature for microbial food safety
information for penicillin-containing products'' and that it
``continues to have safety concerns regarding the non-therapeutic use
of antimicrobial drugs in food-producing animals.'' \9\ The FDA has
not, however, either made public the results of its penicillin review
or taken any action on the other medically important antibiotics that
are used to accelerate the growth of food animals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ September 19, 2008 letter from FDA to Senator Kennedy (at 8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010, the FDA received a
significant amount of new funding to address food safety. An additional
$318.3 million and 718 new FTEs for the Transforming Food Safety
initiative have been proposed for fiscal year 2011. With the additional
resources FDA should take a more aggressive approach to tackling the
growing problem of antibiotic resistant foodborne pathogens.
Congress should ensure that the FDA finishes, updates, and
publishes reviews on the safety of antimicrobials important in human
medicine used for nontherapeutic purposes in food-producing animals.
Request #2.--$3 million to fund Research and Education Grants for
the Study of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria as authorized in Section
7521 of the 2008 Farm Bill.
Background.--Antibiotic-resistant disease has been identified by
the CDC as the number one public health challenge in the United States.
Massive use of medically important antibiotics like penicillin and
tetracycline in food animal production is a significant contributor to
this problem. Research to develop animal production systems less
dependent on antibiotics would help American producers address this
crisis, add consumer value to their products, and position themselves
advantageously in the global marketplace.
In 2004, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a
report highlighting the looming trade implications for countries that
do not improve their agricultural antibiotic-use practices. GAO found
that two of our major competitors in world meat markets (New Zealand
and Denmark) have already banned the use of medically important
antibiotics for growth promotion in food animals, as has the European
Union. In addition, Japan, a major market for U.S. meat exports, is now
reviewing such uses and considering a ban. The international trend is
clear. To keep up and maintain market share, U.S. meat producers need
to have the option to raise animals with less dependence on
antibiotics.
The 2008 Farm Bill addressed this need by creating a new
competitive grant program called Research and Education Grants for the
Study of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. This program will provide the
research needed to understand the phenomenon of antibiotic resistance
and devise food animal production systems less dependent on antibiotic
use. But, this important program will not get off the ground without
funding. If U.S. meat producers hope to maintain a competitive
advantage in the global market, funding is needed to support research
to provide technical information on antibiotic-free production methods
to all meat producers, and to enable those producers seeking to
transition away from routine antibiotic use to do so smoothly.
Accordingly, we urge the committee to appropriate $3 million to launch
the grant program.
Request #3.--$10 million for the FDA/USDA/CDC National
Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) in order to expand
data collection by $3 million beyond current annual funding of
approximately $7 million.
Systematic collection and analyses of data are essential to
addressing the growing problem of antibiotic resistant disease. NARMS
has been funded at about $7 million for the last several years and at
that level has been unable to keep up with emerging new public health
concerns, such as the Committee-recognized (in the report on the fiscal
year 2009 appropriations bill) threat of methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus (``MRSA''). Additional funding will enable
increased surveillance, to include additional bacterial species and
numbers and/or types of samples as well as allow NARMS researchers to
utilize more sensitive methods (e.g., antibiotic-supplemented media and
molecular assays). Furthermore, the additional funding should be used
to improve sampling of bacteria on farm animals.
NARMS is a national public health surveillance system that tracks
changes in the susceptibility of certain enteric bacteria to
antimicrobial agents of human and veterinary medical importance. The
NARMS program was established in 1996 as a collaboration among three
Federal agencies: the FDA, the CDC, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA). NARMS is included in the FDA's budget, and the FDA
then gives some of the appropriated funds to CDC and USDA.
NARMS also collaborates with scientists involved in antimicrobial
resistance monitoring in other countries so that information can be
shared on the global dimensions of antimicrobial resistance in
foodborne bacteria. The NARMS program currently looks at only four
pathogens: Salmonella, Campylobacter, Escherichia coli, and Enterococci
on retail meats. However, the scientific literature on foodborne
antibiotic-resistant bacteria shows that additional pathogens may be
contaminating our food supply, such as Staphylococcus aureus.
As a public health monitoring system, the primary objectives of
NARMS are to:
--Monitor trends in antimicrobial resistance among foodborne bacteria
from humans (CDC), retail meats (FDA), and animals (USDA);
--Disseminate timely information on antimicrobial resistance to
promote interventions that reduce resistance among foodborne
bacteria;
--Conduct research to better understand the emergence, persistence,
and spread of antimicrobial resistance;
--Assist the FDA in making decisions related to the approval of safe
and effective antimicrobial drugs for animals.
The NARMS program is important for identifying trends in
antimicrobial resistance and for setting policy to address problems
that are identified. For example, NARMS data have been used to support
regulatory action such as the FDA's withdrawal in 2005 of the approval
for fluoroquinolones in poultry and a proposed FDA ban in 2008 on the
extralabel use of cephalosporins in food animals.
Thank you for your support of these priorities.
Adrian Dominicans Sisters.
Alliance for Sustainability.
Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics.
American Academy of Pediatrics, District II.
American Academy of Pediatrics, NY Chapter 2.
American Academy of Pediatrics, NY Chapter 3.
American Academy of Physician Assistants.
American Grassfed Association.
American Nurses Association.
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Animal Welfare Approved.
Arkansas Nature Alliance.
Blue Heron Environmental Network Inc.
Breast Cancer Fund.
Butte Environmental Council.
California Public Health Association, North.
Catholic Healthcare West.
Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Chicago Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Citizen Action of Wisconsin.
Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana.
Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future.
Citizens for Sludge-free Land.
Clean Water Action.
Coast Action Group.
Colorado Academy of Family Physicians.
Consumers Union.
Earth Day Coalition, Cleveland.
Endangered Habitats League.
Environmental Defense Fund.
Fair Food.
Family Farm Defenders.
Farms Without Harm.
Farmworker Justice.
Food & Water Watch.
Food Animal Concerns Trust.
Food Democracy Now!.
Friends of Arizona Rivers.
Friends of the Earth.
Georgia AIDS Coalition.
Grass-roots.
Halifax River Audubon.
Humane Farming Association.
Humane Society of the United States.
Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association.
Illinois Citizens for Clean Air & Water.
Infectious Disease Association of California.
Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy.
Iowa Association of Water Agencies.
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement.
Iowa Environmental Council.
Iowa Farmers Union.
Izaak Walton League of America, Midwest.
Keep Antibiotics Working.
Kentucky Resources Council.
Klamath Forest Alliance.
Land Stewardship Project.
Lymphoma Foundation of America.
Maine Organic Farmers & Gardeners Association.
Maine Public Health Association.
Michigan Antibiotic Resistance Reduction Coalition.
Michigan Public Health Association.
Minnesota Citizens Organized Acting Together.
Montana Public Health Association.
National Anti-Vivisection Society.
National Catholic Rural Life Conference.
National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association.
National Organic Coalition.
National Organization for Rare Disorders.
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
Naturesource Communications.
Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility United Church of
Christ.
New Mexico Environmental Law Center.
North Carolina Association of Pharmacists.
Northeast Organic Farming Association--Interstate Council.
Northeast Organic Farming Association--Massachusetts.
NY/NJ Environmental Watch.
Occidental Arts & Ecology Center.
Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association.
Ohio Environmental Council.
Ohio Nurses Association.
Ohio River Foundation.
Oklahoma Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics.
Oregon Pediatric Society.
Organic Consumers Association.
Pennsylvania Coalition of Nurse Practitioners.
Pennsylvania Farmers Union.
Pennsylvania State Nurses Association, Environmental Health Task Force.
Pew Campaign on Human Health & Industrial Farming.
Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles.
Preserve Wild Santee.
Protect Our Earth's Treasures.
Rivers Unlimited.
Rural Advancement Foundation International, USA.
Safe Food & Fertilizer.
Safe Tables Our Priority.
San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility.
San Francisco Medical Society.
South Carolina Nurses Association.
Southwest Environmental Center.
Stonyfield Farm, Inc.
Sustain LA.
Sustainable Earth.
The Cornucopia Institute.
The Minnesota Project.
The Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists.
Trust for America's Health.
Union of Concerned Scientists.
Upper Merrimack River Local Advisory Committee.
U.S. Environmental Watch.
Washington Sustainable Food & Farming Network.
Waterkeeper Alliance.
Western Nebraska Resources Council.
Wisconsin Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics.
Women's Environmental Institute.
Women, Food & Agriculture Network.
Women's Health & Environmental Network.
______
Letter From the USA Rice Federation
March 26, 2010.
Hon. Herb Kohl,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and
Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Rosa DeLauro,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and
Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Re: USA Rice Federation's Fiscal Year 2011 Agriculture Appropriations
Requests
Dear Chairman Kohl and Chairman DeLauro: This is to convey the rice
industry's requests for fiscal year 2011 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 2011 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, especially given that the Farm Bill was
reauthorized in June of 2008 and represents a contract with America's
producers.
A list of the programs the USA Rice Federation supports for
appropriations in fiscal year 2011 are as follows:
funding priorities
Research and APHIS
The Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center (DBNRRC) 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 fiscal year
2011 funding for rice at the DBNRRC at least at the fiscal year 2010
approved level of $3,607,338 in base funding. In addition, we strongly
support the President's proposed $500,000 funding increase for rice-
related climate-change research and $400,000 increase for rice-breeding
research at the DBNRRC. We also urge funding a $1.3 million increase
for the ARS facility at Stuttgart for research on diversified rice-
farming techniques to help reduce water use by developing varieties
that are more drought tolerant.
For APHIS-Wildlife Services, we encourage the subcommittees to fund
the Louisiana blackbird control project at $150,000, which we strongly
support. 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 allows USA Rice to focus on
importer, foodservice, and other non-retail promotion activities around
the world. This program should be fully funded for fiscal year 2011 at
the authorized level of $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. This program should also be fully funded for fiscal year 2011 at
the authorized level of $200 million. USA Rice strongly opposes the
President's proposed 20 percent reduction in MAP funding.
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 the Food and Drug Administration in fiscal year 2010
for food-safety purposes. We urge Congress to continue this funding
direction by increasing the Agency's fiscal year 2011 appropriations
for food-safety personnel, programs, and related technology, including
continuing to ensure the safety of imported food.
Appropriations increases would allow the FDA to help reassure
consumers and accelerate innovation in food-safety programs and related
research and technology development. FDA would be able to administer
food-safety inspections and other related activities more fully and
effectively, speed up approvals for safe, new food technologies and
products, and provide leadership in protecting the food supply from
intentional domestic and foreign threats.
As importantly, USA Rice opposes the President's proposed food-
safety-related user fees, including for food registration and
inspection and export certificates. These public-safety activities
should continue to be funded from annual appropriations.
Food Aid
We urge the subcommittees to fund Public Law 480 title I. No title
I funding has been provided since fiscal year 2006. At a minimum,
fiscal year 2011 funding should be the same as 2006. Public Law 480
title I is our top food-aid priority and we support continued funding
in order to meet international demand. Food-aid sales historically
account for an important portion of U.S. rice exports.
For Public Law 480 title II, we strongly support funding title II
up front at the fully authorized $2.5 billion level, which would help
to make possible satisfying the 2.5 million MT required by statute. We
encourage the subcommittees to fund title II at the higher level to
ensure consistent tonnage amounts for the rice industry. We strongly
oppose any shifting of title II funds, which 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. For the program's Commodity Credit Corporation funding
component, a minimum at USDA's estimated fiscal year 2010 level of $150
million is requested. 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, including for improved computer hardware and software. 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.
Sincerely,
Reece Langley,
Vice President, Government Affairs.
______
Letter From the Wyoming State Engineer's Office
March 10, 2010.
Hon. Herb Kohl,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for Designation to the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program of 2.5 per centum of the Total Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Funding Recommended in the
President's Fiscal Year 2011 Budget.
Dear Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Brownback: This letter is
sent in support of the designation of 2.5 percent of the fiscal year
2010 Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) funding for the
Department of Agriculture's Colorado River Salinity Control (CRSC)
Program. With the enactment of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA, which was designated Public Law 104-127),
the USDA's CRSC Program is a component program within EQIP. Wyoming
views the inclusion of the CRSC Program in EQIP as a direct recognition
on the part of Congress of the Federal commitment to maintenance of the
water quality standards for salinity in the Colorado River. The vital
role of the Department of Agriculture in meeting that commitment is
apparent pursuant to the law, as well as based on the past 25 years we
have observed and encouraged Agriculture's efforts effectively reducing
salt loading into the Colorado River system through proven and cost-
effective irrigation water application and management practices. Each
of the seven Colorado River Basin States, acting collectively through
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, have actively assisted
the U.S. Department of Agriculture in implementing its unique,
collaborative and important program.
Established in 1973, the seven-State Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Forum coordinates with the Federal Government on the
maintenance of the basin-wide Water Quality Standards for Salinity in
the Colorado River System. The Forum is composed of gubernatorial
representatives and serves as a liaison between the seven States and
the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture and the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Forum advises the Federal
agencies on the progress of efforts to control the salinity of the
Colorado River. Its annual funding recommendation process includes
suggesting to the Department of Agriculture the amount the Forum
believes USDA should be expending in the subsequent 2 years for its on-
farm CRSC Program. Overall, the combined efforts of the Basin States,
the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Agriculture have
resulted in one of the Nation's most successful non-point source
control programs.
The Colorado River provides municipal and industrial water for
nearly 30 million people and irrigation water to approximately 4
million acres of land in the United States. The River is also the water
source for some 2.5 million people and 500,000 acres in Mexico.
Limitations on users' abilities to make the greatest use of that water
supply due to the River's high concentration of total dissolved solids
(e.g., the water's salinity concentration) remains a major issue and
continuing concern in both the United States and Mexico. The salinity
concentration in this water supply especially affects agricultural,
municipal, and industrial water users. While economic detriments and
damages in Mexico are unquantified, the Bureau of Reclamation presently
estimates direct and computable salinity-related damages in the United
States amount to $376 million per year.
At its recent October 2009 meeting, the Forum recommended that the
USDA CRSC Program expend 2.5 percent of the Environmental Quality
Incentive Program funding. In the Forum's judgment, this amount of
funding is necessary to implement one of the most successful Federal/
State cooperative non-point source pollution control programs in the
United States. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory
Council has taken the position that the funding for the salinity
control program should not be below $20 million per year. The amount of
State and local cost-sharing that can be applied in each given fiscal
year is driven by the amount of Federal appropriations and the EQIP
allocation.
The State of Wyoming greatly appreciates the subcommittee's support
of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program in past years. We
continue to believe this important basin-wide water quality improvement
program merits support by your subcommittee. We request that your
subcommittee direct the allocation of 2.5 percent of the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program funding for the USDA's CRSC Program during
fiscal year 2011. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this
statement and its inclusion in the formal record for fiscal year 2011
appropriations.
Respectfully submitted,
Patrick T. Tyrrell,
Wyoming State Engineer, Chairman, Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Forum.
Dan S. Budd,
Interstate Stream Commissioner, Member, Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Ad Hoc Coalition, Prepared Statement of the...................... 295
Alliance for a Stronger FDA, Prepared Statement of the........... 297
American:
Commodity Distribution Association (ACDA), Prepared Statement
of
the........................................................ 300
Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), Prepared Statement of the..... 302
Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), Prepared Statement of the 305
Honey Producers Association, Inc. (AHPA), Prepared Statement
of the..................................................... 306
Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), Prepared
Statement of the........................................... 311
Museum of Natural History (AMNH), Prepared Statement of the.. 314
Public Power Association (APPA), Prepared Statement of the... 315
Sheep Industry Association (ASI), Prepared Statement of the.. 316
Society for:
Microbiology (ASM), Prepared Statements of the.........321, 323
Nutrition (ASN), Prepared Statement of the............... 326
Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB), Prepared Statement of the 329
Amicus Therapeutics, Letter from................................. 331
Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), Prepared Statement of the........ 334
Association of Clinical Research Organizations (ACRO), Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 337
Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 292
Brownback, Senator Sam, U.S. Senator from Kansas:
Questions Submitted by.....................................120, 289
Statements of................................................2, 254
Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 118
California Association of Winegrape Growers, Letter from the..... 339
Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform (CCAR), Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 341
Cochran, Norris, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Budget,
Department of Health and Human Services........................ 253
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 132
Collins, Senator Susan, U.S. Senator from Maine, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 133
Colorado River:
Board of California, Prepared Statement of the............... 341
Commission of Nevada, Letter from the........................ 343
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Prepared Statement of the............ 343
Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota,
Questions Submitted by........................................98, 286
Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator from Illinois, Questions
Submitted by.................................................105, 286
Farm Credit Administration (FCA), Prepared Statement of the...... 344
FasterCures/The Center for Accelerating Medical Solutions,
Prepared Statement of.......................................... 348
Feeding America, Prepared Statement of........................... 350
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator from California,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 99
Florida State University (FSU), Prepared Statement of............ 355
Fong, Phyllis K., Inspector General, Department of Agriculture,
Prepared Statement of.......................................... 15
Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville, Inc. (FAR-B),
Prepared Statement of.......................................... 356
Hamburg, Dr. Margaret A., Commissioner, Food and Drug
Administration, Department of Health and Human Services........ 253
Prepared Statement of........................................ 259
Statement of..................................................... 256
Harkin, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator from Iowa, Questions Submitted
by............................................................. 95
Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 358
International Walking Horse Association (IWHA), Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 361
Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 55
Questions Submitted by....................................... 108
Kohl, Senator Herb, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin:
Opening Statements of........................................1, 253
Questions Submitted by......................................56, 280
Lacey Act Coalition, Letter from the............................. 363
McGarey, Patrick, Director, Office of Budget, Food and Drug
Administration, Department of Health and Human Services........ 253
Merrigan, Dr. Kathleen, Deputy Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Department of Agriculture........................... 1
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Letter from
the............................................................ 364
National:
Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO), Prepared
Statement of the........................................... 365
Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association (NCSFPA),
Prepared Statement of the.................................. 365
Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC), Prepared Statement of
the........................................................ 370
Environmental Services Center (NESC), Prepared Statement of
the........................................................ 372
Organic Coalition (NOC), Prepared Statement of the........... 374
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Prepared Statement of the. 377
Walking Horse Association (NWHA), Prepared Statement of the.. 381
WIC Association:
Letter from the.......................................... 382
Prepared Statement of the................................ 381
Nelson, Senator Ben, U.S. Senator from Nebraska, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 110
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 384
Organic:
Farming Research Foundation (OFRF), Prepared Statement of the 386
Trade Association (OTA), Prepared Statement of the........... 389
Pickle Packers International, Inc., Prepared Statement of........ 393
Pryor, Senator Mark, U.S. Senator from Arkansas, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 115
Red River Valley Association, Prepared Statement of.............. 399
Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 114
Rocky Mountain Climate Organization, Prepared Statement of the... 402
San Diego County Water Authority, Letter from the................ 404
Society for Women's Health Research (SWHR), Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 405
Specter, Senator Arlen, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 288
Steele, Dr. Scott, Budget Officer, Department of Agriculture..... 1
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Prepared
Statement of................................................... 408
Equine Protection, Prepared Statement of..................... 412
The Wildlife Society, Prepared Statement of...................... 413
Tydings, Hon. Joseph............................................. 415
Union of Concerned Scientists, et al., Prepared Statement of the. 416
USA Rice Federation, Letter from the............................. 420
Vilsack, Tom, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department of
Agriculture.................................................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 6
Statement of................................................. 3
Wine Institute, Letter from the.................................. 339
WineAmerica, Letter from......................................... 339
Winegrape Growers of America, Letter from the.................... 339
Wyoming State Engineer's Office, Letter from the................. 422
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Secretary
Page
``Actively Engaged'' Farmer...................................... 109
Additional Committee Questions................................... 56
Administration's:
Funding of Catfish Inspections............................... 115
Proposed Cuts to:
Delta Regional Authority................................. 117
Farm Bill Safety Net..................................... 116
Advanced Genetic Technologies, Kentucky.......................... 135
Advancing Biofuel Production, Texas.............................. 135
Aegilops Cylindrica (Jointed Goatgrass), Washington.............. 135
Afghanistan Agriculture.......................................... 29
Ag-Based Industrial Lubricants Research Program, Iowa............ 218
Agricultural:
Development.................................................. 121
In the American Pacific, Hawaii.......................... 218
Diversification, Hawaii...................................... 136
Entrepreneural Alternatives, Pennsylvania.................... 137
Marketing, Illinois.......................................... 137
Reconstruction and Stabilization............................. 85
Agriculture:
And Food Research Initiative................................. 75
Energy Innovation Center, Georgia............................ 138
Expo......................................................... 28
In the Classroom............................................. 238
Science, Ohio................................................ 138
Waste Utilization, West Virginia............................. 219
Agroecology/Chesapeake Bay Agroecology, Maryland................. 138
Air Quality, Texas and Kansas.................................... 139
Animal:
Disease Traceabilty.......................................... 108
Health Research and Diagnostics, Kentucky.................... 219
Science Food Safety Consortium, Arkansas, Iowa, and Kansas... 139
Waste Management, Oklahoma................................... 219
Appalachian Farming Systems Research Center...................... 118
Apple Fire Blight, Michigan and New York......................... 140
Applied Agriculture and Environmental Research, California....... 220
Aquaculture:
Product and Marketing Development, West Virginia............. 145
Research and Education Center, Pennsylvania.................. 221
California, Florida, and Texas............................... 141
Idaho and Washington......................................... 141
Louisiana.................................................... 142
Mississippi.................................................. 143
North Carolina............................................... 144
Ohio......................................................... 220
Armillaria Root Rot, Michigan.................................... 145
ARS Administrative Costs......................................... 74
Asparagus Production Technologies, Washington.................... 146
Assisting Rural Communities to Create Prosperity................. 9
Avian Bioscience, Delaware....................................... 146
Babcock Institute, Wisconsin..................................... 147
Barley for Rural Development, Idaho and Montana.................. 148
Beef Improvement Research, Missouri and Texas.................... 148
Best Practices in Agriculture Waste Management, California....... 221
Bioactive Foods and Research for Health and Food Safety,
Massachusetts.................................................. 149
Biobased Polymer Initiative, Kansas.............................. 221
Biodesign and Processing Research Center, Virginia............... 149
Bioenergy Production and Carbon Sequestration, Tennessee......... 149
Biomass-Based Energy Research, Mississippi and Oklahoma.......... 149
Biorefinery Assistance Program................................... 38
Biotechnology.................................................... 30
North Carolina............................................... 150
Research, Mississippi........................................ 221
Bovine Tuberculosis, Michigan and Minnesota...................... 150
Broadband........................................................ 52
Brucellosis Vaccine, Montana..................................... 150
Business Gateway................................................. 65
Capital Security Cost Sharing.................................... 84
Cataloging Genes Associated With Drought and Disease Resistance,
New Mexico..................................................... 151
Catfish Inspection Program....................................... 132
CCE Computer Modernization....................................... 80
Cellulosic Biomass, South Carolina............................... 222
Center for:
Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa..................... 222
Food Industry Excellence, Texas.............................. 222
Innovative Food Technology, Ohio............................. 223
North American Studies, Texas................................ 223
One Medicine, Illinois....................................... 151
Renewable Transportation Fuel, Michigan...................... 224
Rural Studies, Vermont....................................... 152
Centers for Dairy and Beef Excellence, Pennsylvania.............. 224
Childhood:
Farm Safety, Iowa............................................ 238
Obesity and Nutrition, Vermont............................... 152
Citrus........................................................... 100
Canker and Greening, Florida................................. 153
Classical Plant Breeding......................................... 74
Clemson University Veterinary Institute, South Carolina.......... 224
Climate Forecasting, Florida..................................... 224
Competitiveness of Agriculture Products, Washington.............. 154
Congressionally Direct Spending.................................. 134
Congressionally Directed Spending................................ 72
Conservation:
Funding...................................................... 36
Partnerships................................................. 106
Technical Assistance......................................... 110
Technology Transfer, Wisconsin............................... 239
Consolidation of GSA Leased Space................................ 69
Contracting and Acquisition Workforce Training................... 86
Cool Season Legume Research, Idaho, North Dakota, and Washington. 155
Cost Sharing..................................................... 78
Cotton:
Insect Management and Fiber Quality, Georgia................. 156
Research, Texas.............................................. 225
Council for Agriculture Science and Technology, Iowa............. 225
Country of Origin Labeling....................................... 108
Cranberry/Blueberry:
Disease and Breeding, New Jersey............................. 157
Massachusetts................................................ 157
Crop:
Insurance...................................................40, 125
Integration and Production, South Dakota..................... 158
Pathogens, North Carolina.................................... 158
Dairy..........................................................104, 133
And Meat Goat Research, Texas................................ 159
Education, Iowa.............................................. 239
Farm Profitability, Pennsylvania............................. 159
Farmers...................................................... 23
Data Information System--REEIS................................... 226
Delta Rural Revitalization, Mississippi.......................... 160
Departmental Management Reorganization........................... 68
Designing Foods for Health, Texas................................ 160
Detection and Food Safety, Alabama............................... 161
Diabetes Detection and Prevention, Washington and Pennsylvania... 240
Dietary Intervention, Ohio....................................... 226
Direct Certification............................................. 83
Discrimination Claims............................................ 131
Drought Mitigation, Nebraska..................................... 161
Duration of the National Household Food Purchase and Acquisition
Survey......................................................... 71
E-Authentication................................................. 65
E-Commerce, Mississippi.......................................... 241
E-Government Initiatives and Lines of Business................... 64
E-Rulemaking..................................................... 65
E-Training....................................................... 66
Efficient Irrigation, New Mexico and Texas.....................162, 242
Electric Loan Program............................................ 51
Electronic Grants Administration System.......................... 227
Emerald Ash Borer, Ohio.......................................... 162
Emergency Food Assistance Program................................ 54
Ensuring:
Private Working Lands Are Conserved, Restored, and Made More
Resilient to Climate Change, While Enhancing Our Water
Resources.................................................. 14
That All of America's Children Have Access to Safe,
Nutritious, and Balanced Meals............................. 7
Environmental:
Research, New York........................................... 162
Risk Factors/Cancer, New York................................ 163
Environmentally Safe Products, Vermont........................... 164
Ethanol..........................................................26, 38
Ethnobotanicals, Maryland........................................ 227
Expanded Wheat Pasture, Oklahoma................................. 164
Expert Integrated Pest Management Decision Support System........ 165
Extension:
Federal Administration Grants................................ 238
Specialist, Mississippi...................................... 242
Farm:
Loans........................................................ 79
Service Agency (FSA) Automated Systems....................... 88
Farmers Lawsuits................................................. 31
Farmland Preservation, Ohio...................................... 227
Floriculture, Hawaii............................................. 166
Florida Biomass to Biofuels Conversion Program, Florida.......... 228
Food:
Aid:
Pilot Projects........................................... 120
Quality.................................................. 121
And:
Agriculture Policy Research Institute, Iowa, Missouri,
Nevada, Wisconsin...................................... 167
Fuel Initiative, Iowa.................................... 167
Banks........................................................ 54
Emergency Response Network (FERN)............................ 77
Marketing Policy Center, Connecticut......................... 167
Production Education, Vermont................................ 243
Safety......................................................99, 107
Maine and Oklahoma....................................... 168
Research Consortium, New York............................ 169
Texas.................................................... 168
Security, Washington......................................... 169
Forages for Advancing Livestock Production, Kentucky............. 169
Foreign Catfish.................................................. 32
Forestry Research, Arkansas...................................... 169
Fresh Produce Food Safety, California............................ 170
FSIS:
Budget....................................................... 50
Salaries and Expenses........................................ 77
Funding for the Statistical Community of Practice (SCOP)
Initiative..................................................... 70
GAO Greenbook Report............................................. 67
Genomics for Southern Crop Stress and Disease, Mississippi....... 170
Geographic Information System.................................... 171
Global:
Agriculture Development...................................... 46
Change and UV Monitoring, Colorado........................... 172
Research Alliance............................................ 69
Govbenefits.gov.................................................. 66
Grain Sorghum, Kansas and Texas.................................. 173
Grants.Gov....................................................... 66
Grass Seed Cropping for Sustainable Agriculture, Idaho, Oregon,
and Washington................................................. 173
Greenbook Charges................................................ 73
And Miscellaneous Agency Assessments......................... 87
Greenhouse Nurseries, Ohio....................................... 228
Health Education Leadership, Kentucky............................ 243
Healthy Food Financing Initiative...........................43, 56, 126
High:
Performance Computing, Utah.................................. 174
Value Horticultural Crops, Virginia.......................... 229
Higher Education Institution Challenges Grants................... 77
Human Nutrition:
Louisiana.................................................... 174
New York..................................................... 174
Humane Slaughter................................................. 77
Hunger-Free Community Grants..................................... 55
Hydroponic Production, Ohio...................................... 175
Imports of Dogs.................................................. 108
Improved:
Dairy Management Practices, Pennsylvania..................... 176
Fruit Practices, Michigan.................................... 176
Income Enhancement Demonstration, Ohio........................... 243
Increasing Shelf Life of Agricultural Commodities, Idaho......... 176
Infectious Disease Research, Colorado............................ 177
Initiative to Improve Blueberry Production and Efficiency,
Georgia........................................................ 178
Inland Marine Aquaculture, Virginia.............................. 178
Institute for:
Food Science and Engineering, Arkansas....................... 178
Sustainable Agriculture, Wisconsin........................... 244
Integrated:
Economic and Technical Analysis of Sustainable Biomass Energy
Systems, Indiana........................................... 178
Pest Management.............................................. 179
Production Systems, Oklahoma................................. 179
International:
Arid Lands Consortium, Arizona............................... 180
Center for Good Technology Development to Expand Markets,
Indiana.................................................... 230
Food:
Aid...................................................... 120
Security................................................. 112
Interstate Shipment Program...................................... 77
Invasive:
Phragmite Control and Outreach, Michigan..................... 244
Plant Management, Montana.................................... 181
Iowa Vitality Center............................................. 245
Irrigation Funding............................................... 33
IR-4 Minor Crop Pest Management.................................. 181
IT Security Risks................................................ 64
Joint United States/China Biotechnology Research and Extension,
Utah........................................................... 182
Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food.................................44, 45
Legislative Authority for Administrative Data Pilot Project...... 70
Leopold Center Hypoxia Project, Iowa............................. 182
Limitations on Farm Bill Programs................................ 85
Livestock and Dairy Policy, New York and Texas................... 182
Maine Cattle Health Assistance Program........................... 245
Mandan ARS....................................................... 98
Maple Research, Vermont.......................................... 183
Mariculture, North Carolina...................................... 230
Market Access Program............................................ 105
McGovern-Dole Program............................................ 106
Meadowfoam, Oregon............................................... 183
Medicinal and Bioactive Crops, Texas............................. 231
Methane Research................................................. 27
Michigan Biotechnology Consortium................................ 184
Midwest:
Agribusiness Trade and Information Center, Iowa.............. 231
Center for Bioenergy Grasses, Indiana........................ 184
Poultry Consortium, Iowa..................................... 185
Milk Safety, Pennsylvania........................................ 185
Minor Use Animal Drugs........................................... 185
Mississippi Valley State University.............................. 231
Molluscan Shellfish, Oregon...................................... 186
Monitoring Agricultural Sewage Sludge Application, Ohio.......... 232
Multi-Commodity Research, Oregon................................. 186
National:
Agricultural Statistics Service.............................. 72
Animal Identification System................................. 41
Beef Cattle Genetic Evaluation Consortium, Colorado, Georgia,
and New York............................................... 187
Center for:
Farm Safety, Iowa........................................ 245
Soybean Biotechnology, Missouri.......................... 188
Drought Mitigation Center.................................... 113
Export Initiative............................................ 84
Organic Program.............................................. 45
NE Center for Invasive Plants, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine... 232
Nematode Resistance Genetic Engineering, New Mexico.............. 188
Nevada Arid Rangelands Initiative................................ 189
New:
Century Farm, Iowa........................................... 189
Crop Opportunities, Kentucky................................. 190
Initiatives.................................................. 43
Satellite and Computer-Based Technology for Agriculture,
Mississippi................................................ 190
Not-Ready-to-Eat Poultry Products................................ 134
NRCS OIG Audit Report............................................ 95
Nutrition:
And Diet Research, California................................ 233
Enhancement, Wisconsin....................................... 246
Guidelines................................................... 30
Research, New York........................................... 233
Office of:
Advocacy and Outreach........................................ 61
Budget and Program Analysis.................................. 61
Civil Rights................................................. 67
Ecosystem Services Markets................................... 59
The Chief:
Economist................................................ 60
Information Officer Budget............................... 62
Tribal Relations............................................. 60
Ohio-Israel Agriculture Initiative............................... 246
OIG:
Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request.............................. 22
Goal 1: Strengthen USDA's Safety and Security Measures for
Public Health.............................................. 16
Goal 2: Strengthening USDA's Program Integrity and Improving
the Delivery of Benefits................................... 19
Goal 3: OIG Work in Support of USDA's Management Improvement
Initiatives................................................ 20
Goal 4: Improving USDA's Stewardship of Natural Resources.... 21
Investigations............................................... 22
Oversight of USDA's Recovery Act Activities.................. 15
Oil Resources From Desert Plants, New Mexico..................... 191
Organic.......................................................... 101
Cropping:
Oregon................................................... 191
Washington............................................... 192
Research..................................................... 74
Waste Utilization, New Mexico................................ 192
Ouachita National Forest Trail Management Plan (ATVS)............ 117
Outreach......................................................... 83
Pasteurization of Shell Eggs, Michigan........................... 233
Peach Tree Short Life Research, South Carolina................... 193
Pending Civil Rights Cases....................................... 68
Perennial Wheat, Washington...................................... 193
Pest Management Alternatives..................................... 193
Pesticides....................................................... 102
Phytophthora Research:
Georgia...................................................... 194
Michigan..................................................... 194
Phytosensors for Crop Security and Precision Agriculture,
Tennessee...................................................... 195
Pierce's Disease, California..................................... 195
Pigford II Settlement............................................ 133
Pilot Technology Transfer:
Projects, Oklahoma and Mississippi........................... 247
Wisconsin.................................................... 247
PM-10 Study, Washington.......................................... 234
Policy Analyses for a National Secure and Sustainable Food,
Fiber, Forestry and Energy Program, Texas...................... 196
Polymer Research, Kansas......................................... 234
Potato:
Breeding Research Program.................................... 197
Cyst Nematode, Idaho......................................... 196
Integrated Pest Management, Maine............................ 248
Pest Management, Wisconsin................................... 248
Poultry Imports (Chinese Chicken)................................ 116
Precision Agriculture:
Alabama...................................................... 197
Kentucky..................................................... 198
Preharvest Food Safety, Kansas................................... 198
Preservation and Processing Research, Oklahoma................... 198
Promote Agricultural Production and Biotechnology Exports as
America Works to Increase Food Security........................ 11
Protein:
Production for Research to Combat Viruses and Microbes,
Connecticut................................................ 199
Utilization, Iowa............................................ 199
Public Health Data Communication Infrastructure.................. 78
Range Improvement, New Mexico.................................... 249
Rangeland Ecosystems Dynamics, Idaho............................. 199
Recreation One-Stop.............................................. 67
Regional:
Barley Gene Mapping Project, Oregon.......................... 200
Biofuels Feedstocks Research................................. 74
Innovation Initiative........................................ 129
Regionalized Implications of Farm Programs, Missouri and Texas... 200
Renewable Energy and Products, North Dakota...................... 200
Research......................................................... 111
Federal Administration Grants................................ 218
Programs..................................................... 49
Rice Agronomy, Missouri.......................................... 201
Ruminant Nutrition Consortium, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Wyoming................................................ 201
Rural:
Agriculture Small Business Development Program............... 235
Broadband--Rural Utilities Service (RUS)..................... 117
Development--Rural Definition................................ 115
Microenterprise Assistance Program........................... 110
Policies Institute, Nebraska, Iowa, and Missouri............. 202
Renewable Energy Research and Education Center, Wisconsin.... 202
Systems, Mississippi......................................... 235
Utilities Service............................................ 114
Loan and Grant Programs.................................. 99
Russian Wheat Aphid, Colorado.................................... 202
School Food Service Equipment.................................... 54
Secondary Education, 2-Year Postsecondary Education, and
Agriculture in the K-12 Classroom.............................. 76
Section 719 of the Proposed 2011 Act/Farm Bill Implementation.... 94
Seed Technology, South Dakota.................................... 203
Shrimp Aquaculture, Arizona, Hawaii, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas......................... 235
Single Family Housing:
Guaranteed Loan Program...................................... 81
Loans........................................................ 128
Small Fruit Research, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.............. 203
Smith-Lever...................................................... 98
SNAP...........................................................114, 130
State Administrative Expenses................................ 25
Soil-Borne Disease Prevention in Irrigated Agriculture, New
Mexico......................................................... 204
Southern Great Plains Dairy Consortium, New Mexico............... 204
Southwest Consortium for Plant Genetics and Water Resources, New
Mex-
ico............................................................ 205
Soybean:
Cyst Nematode, Missouri...................................... 205
Research, Illinois........................................... 206
Special Research Grants.......................................... 135
Specialty Crops:
Arkansas..................................................... 206
Indiana...................................................... 207
Spending Cuts.................................................... 48
State Inspection Programs........................................ 50
Steep-Water Quality in Pacific Northwest......................... 207
Strategic Watershed Action Teams................................. 80
Sustainable:
Agriculture:
And Natural Resources, Pennsylvania...................... 208
California............................................... 207
Freshwater Conservation, Texas........................... 236
Michigan................................................. 208
Beef Supply, Montana......................................... 209
Engineered Materials From Renewable Resources, Virginia...... 209
Production and Processing Research for Lowbush Specialty
Crop, Maine................................................ 210
Swine and Other Animal Waste Treatment, North Carolina........... 210
Technology for Irrigated Vegetable Production, North Carolina.... 210
Texas Obesity Research Project................................... 210
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008................... 133
Tick Borne Disease Prevention, Rhode Island...................... 210
Tillage, Silviculture, Waste Management, Louisiana............... 211
Trade............................................................ 113
Traditional Production Agriculture............................... 124
Tri-State Joint Peanut Research, Alabama......................... 211
Tribal College and University Community Facility Program......... 98
Tropical:
And Subtropical Research/T Star, Florida, USVI, Puerto Rico,
and
Guam....................................................... 212
Aquaculture, Florida......................................... 212
University of Wisconsin:
Extension Northern Aquaculture Demonstration Facility........ 250
Stevens Point Institute for Sustainable Technologies......... 237
Urban Horticulture:
And Marketing, Illinois...................................... 250
Wisconsin.................................................... 250
Use of Antibiotics............................................... 79
Veterinary:
Medical Loan Repayment Program..............................85, 109
Technology Satellite Program, Kansas......................... 251
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia:
Michigan..................................................... 237
Ohio......................................................... 237
Virtual Plant Database Enhancement Project, Missouri............. 213
Virus-Free Wine Grape Cultivars, Washington...................... 213
Viticulture Consortium, New York, California, and Pennsylvania... 214
Vitis Gene Discovery, Missouri................................... 237
Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program............ 131
Water:
And Wastewater Disposal Grants for Native Alaskan Villages... 81
Conservation, Kansas......................................... 214
Pollutants, West Virginia.................................... 237
Use Efficiency and Water Quality Enhancements, Georgia....... 214
Wetland Plants, Louisiana........................................ 215
Wheat:
Genetic Research, Kansas..................................... 216
Stem Rust.................................................... 122
Wildlife/Livestock Disease Research Partnership, Wyoming......... 216
Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Program.......................95, 104
ARRA Funds................................................... 24
Budget....................................................... 24
Wood Utilization Research........................................ 216
Wool Research, Montana, Texas, and Wyoming....................... 217
World Food:
And Health Initiative, Illinois.............................. 218
Prize........................................................ 75
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Access Act....................................................... 289
Additional Committee Questions................................... 280
Advancing Regulatory Science..................................... 258
Antibiotics...................................................... 284
Bioequivalents................................................... 275
Budget:
Increases.................................................... 253
Request...................................................... 256
Cost of Developing Drugs......................................... 289
Counterfeit Drugs................................................ 275
Critical Path.................................................... 291
Details of the Fiscal Year 2011 Budget........................... 260
Drug Reimportation............................................... 286
FDA:
Fiscal Year 2010 Budget...................................... 259
Response to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic................. 265
2011 Budget Request.......................................... 259
Food Safety....................................................271, 282
Foodborne Illness................................................ 277
Foreign Offices.................................................. 279
Funding Increases................................................ 267
Generic:
Drug Review.................................................. 290
Drugs........................................................ 278
H1N1............................................................. 258
Heparin.......................................................... 273
Importation...................................................... 272
International Trips.............................................. 266
Labeling......................................................... 273
Lipitor.......................................................... 272
Medical:
Device Registry.............................................. 280
Product Safety............................................... 291
Nanotechnology................................................... 269
NCTR............................................................. 271
New Regulatory Pathways.......................................... 268
Partnerships With Academe........................................ 277
Pay Costs........................................................ 280
Prescription Drug Advertising.................................... 283
Priorities....................................................... 279
Program to Import Drugs.......................................... 273
Protecting Patients.............................................. 257
Rapid Response................................................... 278
Rare:
And Neglected Diseases....................................... 255
Diseases..................................................... 267
Regulation of Tobacco............................................ 285
Safety and Access................................................ 275
Salmonella....................................................... 270
Science.......................................................... 266
Standards of Identity for Milk................................... 285
State:
Audits....................................................... 286
Collaboration................................................ 276
Contract Inspections......................................... 286
Third Party Inspection........................................... 290
Tobacco Control Act.............................................. 258
Transforming Food Safety......................................... 256
United States Pharmacopia Partnership............................ 282
User Fees........................................................ 281
Vaccine Development.............................................. 283
Vision for FDA................................................... 266