[Senate Hearing 112-853]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-853
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 5973/S. 2375
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2013, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Agriculture
Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Farm Credit Administration
Nondepartmental Witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-302 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
PATTY MURRAY, Washington LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana MARK KIRK, Illinois
JACK REED, Rhode Island DANIEL COATS, Indiana
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROY BLUNT, Missouri
BEN NELSON, Nebraska JERRY MORAN, Kansas
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JON TESTER, Montana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
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 ROY BLUNT, Missouri
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BEN NELSON, Nebraska SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JERRY MORAN, Kansas
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii (ex
officio)
Professional Staff
Galen Fountain
Jessica Arden Frederick
Dianne Nellor
Stacy McBride (Minority)
Rachel Jones (Minority)
Administrative Support
Molly Barackman-Eder
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Page
Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary............... 1
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug
Administration................................................. 89
Material Submitted by Agencies Not Appearing for Formal Hearings
Department of Agriculture: Office of Inspector General........... 153
Related Agency: Farm Credit Administration....................... 158
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 163
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:03 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Herb Kohl (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Kohl, Pryor, Brown, Blunt, Cochran,
Moran, and Hoeven.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS VILSACK, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
KATHLEEN MERRIGAN, DEPUTY SECRETARY
JOSEPH GLAUBER, CHIEF ECONOMIST
MICHAEL YOUNG, BUDGET OFFICER, OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM
ANALYSIS
opening statement of senator herb kohl
Senator Kohl. The subcommittee will come to order. Today,
we begin our first hearing on the fiscal year 2013 budget
request for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Secretary Vilsack, we thank you for being here. We also want to
welcome Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan, USDA Chief
Economist, Joseph Glauber, and Budget Officer, Michael Young.
We look forward to hearing from you today.
The fiscal year 2013 budget request for the USDA is $18.3
billion. This represents a 7-percent increase over last year.
Some programs are cut, while some programs are eliminated
entirely. Several new initiatives are proposed and substantial
increases are requested in some areas.
The Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program provides
healthy food for women, infants, and children, and is increased
by $422 million. This is mainly due to higher food prices.
Public Law 480 program is reduced by $66 million. This is
somewhat of a concern, as the humanitarian and food needs
around the world, as we all know, have increased.
Our job is to review all the priorities in the budget
ensure that programs vital to people's health, safety, and
livelihoods are adequately funded. We also need to make sure
that tax dollars are spent wisely, as we all know we need to do
more with less.
The USDA is broad in scope and affects the lives of every
American. Now, more than ever, it's essential that we set the
priorities correctly to ensure the Department is both
effective, efficient, and also serves the American people in
the proper way.
We face many challenges this year, as we move through the
appropriations process. I hope to work closely with the
Department, so we can produce a responsible bill.
We also very much look forward to working with Senator
Blunt and all members of the subcommittee. I'd like to thank
Senator Blunt for the helpful and the bipartisan manner in
which we have worked together. This subcommittee has a
tradition of working in a bipartisan manner, and I assure all
members that we will continue that practice as we move forward.
Secretary Vilsack, we thank you again for being here, and
we look forward to your statement. Before that, I would like
ask Senator Blunt for any comments that he may have.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROY BLUNT
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. I hope that with your leadership we can
produce a bill again this year, and I'm going to do everything
I can to be helpful in your efforts to get that done, as I
believe others on the subcommittee will. It was good that the
agriculture appropriations bill was the bill that became the
host for the first appropriations bills that passed last year,
and I hope we can do our work in the same manner this year.
The President's budget proposes a net increase in spending
in the USDA. Of course, as our Nation's debt increases, we have
to look carefully at every part of the budget, including this
one. But over the past year, the Agriculture subcommittee has
made difficult and necessary decisions, as the Department has,
including cutting discretionary spending by 15 percent.
This year represents a significant anniversary for the
USDA. It was 150 years ago, in 1862, that President Lincoln
signed into law the bill that created the USDA. And today, the
Department touches the lives of every American, every day.
Activities undertaken by USDA include agriculture research,
conservation, housing and business loan programs for rural
communities, domestic and international nutrition programs,
food safety, and trade promotion.
The same year that President Lincoln signed the bill that
created the USDA, he also signed a bill that was the Morrill
Land Grant College Act. And over the course now of a century-
and-a-half research and extension conducted at those land grant
universities, and now others, has transformed American
agriculture into the most innovative and productive in the
world. As a result, agriculture remains the brightest spot in
our country's economy today.
Last year, American farmers supported record agricultural
exports and earned their highest income since the 1970s. U.S.
farm exports alone helped support more than 1 million U.S. jobs
in 2011. At the same time, however, USDA predicts farm income
will decline by 6.5 percent this year, and recent studies show
that farmers are less optimistic as surging fuel prices and
increases in other inputs increase their costs.
As we look ahead to fiscal year 2013, we have to be mindful
of the important role that agriculture plays in our economic
recovery. We have to make wise investments in those programs
that will increase our agricultural community's competitiveness
here and abroad, and sound agricultural research is the
cornerstone to success in all aspects of the agriculture
industry, whether it's developing more efficient production
methods, eradicating pest and disease, developing biofuels,
maintaining a safe food supply, or enhancing the nutritional
quality of our diets, USDA is and will be involved.
Agriculture research today makes it possible for one
American farmer to feed 155 people. Continued investment in
research will make it possible for us to meet the global food
demand, which is expected to double, a number that always
surprises me, but the global food demand expected to double by
2050.
I'm pleased to see the Department has increases in its
plans for research. These programs and others are critical to
our farmers' ability to increase production, and every $1 spent
on research results in a $20 return to the U.S. economy.
I'm glad the Secretary and his team are here today, and
really believe that they are managing the Department in a
really challenging time in a way that's transparent, and
effective, and forward looking. And Mr. Secretary, glad you
could join us today.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much.
Secretary Vilsack.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS VILSACK
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, and Senator Blunt, and
Senator Moran, thank you very much for the opportunity to
appear today. You have my statement, and I would just simply
ask for an opportunity to amplify on it just a bit.
We want to thank the subcommittee for this opportunity, and
we would like to start with a plea, and the plea is for an
understanding that we need time and flexibility during these
difficult times.
While the budget that we propose does increase over last
year, I would like to point out that it is several billion
dollars less than it was in 2010. And that has resulted in us
at USDA taking a look very carefully at the ways in which we
expend taxpayer resources and are in the process of a variety
of steps to try to make this a more efficient and more
effective USDA.
We need time to absorb the reductions that have taken
place. We need time to fully implement our plans for additional
savings, which includes a very top to bottom review of our
administrative functions. And we need to have the opportunity
and the flexibility to build on the success that we've
experienced at USDA in the recent past.
Senator Blunt mentioned the fact that we had record income
last year. And while it is true that income is expected to be
down just a bit, it will still be one of the best years in farm
income in our history. It is a result of record exports, a
record number of acres enrolled in conservation, a record
number of crop insurance programs, a record amount of credit
extended to producers, homeowners, and businesses, a record
amount of investment in bio-based products, and a bio-based
economy, as well as the expansion of local and regional food
systems, a record investment in business growth in rural areas
and community development, record lows in fraud and in error
rates in many of our nutrition programs, including the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), expanded food
safety efforts, and expanded effort to improve the nutrition of
American families, with a particular emphasis on our school
children. And as Senator Blunt indicated, an expanded effort at
agriculture research, which is extraordinarily important for us
to be able to meet the growing demands, not here just in the
United States, but also globally.
This has required us to make some tradeoffs, and you'll
find that we actually had to make some difficult decisions
concerning programs that were either duplicative, ineffective,
inefficient, unnecessary, or in some cases, just inadequately
funded to make a difference. We also had to take into
consideration the impact of the farm bill discussions, which
have just begun in the Senate and the House.
We have very specific goals, and I'll conclude with that.
We want a Farm Service Agency (FSA) that provides appropriate
credit and maintains a safety net for our producers. We want to
continue to expand trade and to establish food security
globally through our Foreign Agricultural Service. We want to
promote job growth and improve quality of life and energy
security through rural development.
Through our food safety efforts, we want better food safety
more focused on prevention, surveillance, and detection, and
more rapid recovery and response.
Through the natural resources portion of our budget, we
want to expand technical assistance to landowners so that we
can get conservation on the ground sooner, and we want to focus
on some high-priority landscaped areas, so we can improve soil
and water quality, increase wildlife diversity, work with our
friends and neighbors in the sportsmen field to expand outdoor
recreational opportunities.
In the Marketing and Regulatory Programs (MRP) area, we'd
like to continue our efforts at expanding local and regional
food systems, as well as prioritizing animal and plant health.
The research area, we want to continue to focus on our ability
to maintain competitive targeted research towards priorities,
and within the administration of our food programs, we want to
continue to provide access while improving the integrity of
each and every one of the programs.
Finally, in the administration of the Department, we want
to continue the cultural transformation efforts to improve
employee moral, expand on our process improvement efforts,
which is provided for a more efficient use of our time, realign
our workforce through early retirement incentives, and consider
taking a look at our footprint, which has involved some very
difficult and tough decisions concerning office consolidations,
and at the same time, continue, as I indicated earlier, a
fairly extensive process that's looking at our administrative
services.
PREPARED STATEMENT
It has been a busy time at USDA, and we appreciate the
subcommittee's opportunity to appear today, and look forward to
your questions.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas Vilsack
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this
subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
to discuss the administration's priorities for the Department
of Agriculture (USDA) and provide you an overview of the
President's 2013 budget. I am joined today by Deputy Secretary
Kathleen Merrigan, Joseph Glauber, USDA's Chief Economist, and
Michael Young, USDA's Budget Officer.
When I made my first appearance before this subcommittee,
our country and the Department of Agriculture faced historic
challenges. The economy had deteriorated significantly. It was
a crisis that cost the United States more than 8 million jobs
and plunged the economy and the world into a crisis from which
we are still fighting to recover. Three years later, thanks to
the President's bold actions, the economy is growing again and
creating millions of jobs in the private sector. Over the past
22 months, the Nation's businesses have created 3.2 million
jobs. Last year, we added the most private sector jobs since
2005.
I am proud to say that America's farmers, ranchers, and
producers have helped fuel the beginnings of the recovery. The
establishment of the Department 150 years ago underscored the
importance of agriculture and rural America to the country.
What was true then remains true today--agriculture and rural
America matter. Agriculture plays a fundamental role in our
economy--responsible for 1 in 12 jobs. That's not surprising,
because at the time the Department was created, the Morrill Act
established the partnership between USDA and the land grant
universities. Because of this partnership, these institutions
have graduated 20 million people, people who went on to jobs
that built our economy. So, when American producers earn record
income, as they did last year, everyone benefits through the
creation of more jobs and higher wages, whether in food
processing, packaging, or farm equipment manufacturing, the
reduction of our dependence on foreign oil supplies, or the
increased availability of more nutritious food.
On February 10, 2012, I announced another record-breaking
calendar year for farm exports. Total agricultural exports for
calendar year 2011 were a robust $136.3 billion. We saw a rise
in both the value and volume of U.S. agricultural exports
worldwide in 2011, as international sales rose $20.5 billion
over the previous record set in calendar year 2010.
Agricultural exports have supported the creation of over a
million jobs. USDA has expanded markets for American goods
abroad by working aggressively to break down barriers to trade
and provide U.S. businesses with the resources needed to reach
consumers around the world. Last year, we exported an all-time
high of $5.4 billion worth of beef and beef products,
surpassing the previous record by more than $1.6 billion. The
volume of shipments also surpassed the 2003 levels, the last
year before a detection of bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) disrupted U.S. trade. The return to pre-2003 levels marks
an important milestone in USDA's steadfast efforts to open and
expand international markets. The ratification of the trade
agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama will increase
U.S. farm exports by an additional $2.3 billion--supporting
nearly 20,000 American jobs--by eliminating tariffs, removing
barriers to trade and leveling the playing field for U.S.
producers.
Agriculture has also led the development of our bio-based
economy, where what we grow and raise is used to make fuel,
chemicals, and polymers to complement our traditional
production of food, feed, and fiber. Resilient, hard-working
rural residents provide a model for creating economically
thriving communities, which underscores why the unemployment
rate is dropping more quickly in rural America than anywhere
else in the country.
At USDA we have been working to fulfill President Obama's
vision for a Nation where everyone gets a fair shot and an
economy that makes, creates and innovates. We have been working
to implement the President's vision by laying a foundation for
sustainable economic growth and job creation. USDA is at the
forefront of developing the technology and tools necessary to
transform rural America so that it can create and take
advantage of new economic opportunities.
We have generated rural wealth with our conservation and
rural development programs. These programs help create green
jobs, improve recreation and tourism, and facilitate the
production of renewable energy. We have maintained a strong
agriculture safety net through a system of income support,
disaster mitigation, and a record number of farm loans.
The Department has programs to help people in need by
ensuring that they have access to a plentiful supply of safe
and nutritious food. This is fundamental to the healthy
development of every child in America and to the well-being and
productivity of every family. In recent years, the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has helped millions of
families meet basic nutritional needs. The program currently
serves as a bridge to recovery for over 46 million Americans
who are at risk of being hungry when they face challenging
economic times. More than half of those who rely on the program
are children, elderly, or the disabled, and many participants
are newly unemployed who may have never thought they would need
this assistance.
While SNAP has increased steadily since its last low point
in 2000, and sharply during the recent economic downturn, the
rate of increase has been declining since January 2010. And
now, we estimate that rising employment and household income
will reduce participation in SNAP in 2013, even as the program
serves a larger share of those eligible. This is how the
program is designed to work; participation rises during
difficult economic times and falls in better times. Even under
this period of rapid growth in participation, this
administration has achieved historically high accuracy rates in
SNAP, saving the taxpayer billions of dollars. We will continue
to make improvements that protect program integrity, even as
Federal and State budgets for oversight of the program are
declining.
We have accomplished a critical step on the road to deliver
healthier, more nutritious food to our Nation's schoolchildren
and to help them develop healthy eating habits for life. On
January 26, 2012, we published the final rule that refines and
improves the standards for meals available to over 51 million
school children across the country every day. The new rule
implements provisions of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of
2010 that are simpler and less burdensome than the ones they
replace. The rule substantially increase offerings of fruits,
vegetables, and whole grains; reduce saturated fat, trans fats
and sodium; and set sensible calorie limits based on the age of
children being served. Our understanding of the nutritional
quality of food is built upon USDA science. We have seen the
connection between what our kids eat and how well they perform
in school. And we know that America's success in the 21st
century is dependent on having the best-prepared and best-
educated workforce in the world. So it is critical that that
all children have the basic nutrition they need to learn, to
grow, and to pursue their dreams.
These are just a few of the ways that USDA is helping to
create jobs and work towards an economy built to last. But it's
going to take more to keep moving forward, and that's the goal
of President Obama.
I share the President's vision for investing in activities
that promote economic growth, while reducing our deficits over
the long-term. We need to cut what we can't afford in order to
pay for what really matters, but in a way that does not hamper
growth or prevent us from helping businesses and American
families that need assistance. At USDA we recognized, like
families and businesses across the country, that we could not
continue to operate as we did in the past and that we must
innovate, modernize, and be better stewards of the taxpayers'
dollars.
Over the past decade, USDA has seen an increase in program
complexity and demand for services while staffing has
decreased. Therefore, for fiscal year 2012, I led a Department-
wide review of operations to make USDA work better and more
efficiently for the American people. Agency leaders took a hard
look at all their operations, both in headquarters and field
offices. The result was our Blueprint for Stronger Service. The
plan identifies administrative efficiencies, office closures,
and targeted staffing reductions, to help us deal with
reductions in funding. This plan will create optimal use of
USDA's employees, better results for USDA customers, and
greater efficiencies for American taxpayers.
Under the Blueprint for Stronger Service, USDA is reducing
expenditures for certain IT products, supplies, travel,
printing, and other services. The Blueprint also calls upon
USDA to strengthen its administrative services. Under this
initiative, the Department identified 379 recommendations for
improving USDA's office support and operations, which includes
ways to streamline the provision of administrative services,
such as civil rights, information technology, finance, human
resources, homeland security, procurement, and property
management. Twenty-seven initial improvements have been
identified for first-phase implementation of this project that
will realize efficiencies through improved administrative
services, such as leveraging USDA's size through strategic and
volume purchases as is demonstrated by the consolidation of
over 700 cell phone plans down to approximately 10.
To realize further efficiencies, USDA has proposed closure
of 259 domestic offices, facilities, and labs across the
country, as well as seven foreign offices while ensuring that
the vital services they provide are not diminished. In some
cases, the offices being closed are no longer staffed or are
staffed by one or two people; many are within 20 miles of other
USDA offices. In other cases, technology improvements, advanced
service centers, and broadband service have reduced the need
for brick and mortar facilities.
Last year, many agencies put hiring controls in place,
followed by voluntary early retirement programs and targeted
separation incentive programs. We have offered these programs
on a broader basis in fiscal year 2012. Over the last 15
months, nearly 7,800 people have elected to take advantage of
regular and early retirement opportunities. These departures
have provided agencies the flexibility to eliminate or
restructure positions to be more relevant to customer needs.
Many of the vacated positions will not be refilled, and many of
those refilled will be at lower grades than before. We opted to
manage change rather than implement reductions-in-force or
furloughs, which would have disrupted services that matter to
the public.
When fully implemented, these immediate actions along with
other recommended changes will generate efficiencies valued at
about $150 million annually. Further improvements are expected
based on the realignment of the workforce. Most important,
these actions will ensure that USDA continues to provide an
optimal level of service to the American people within
available funding levels. Ultimately, the Blueprint for
Stronger Service will allow us to manage change in a way that
allows us to provide a high level of services despite reduced
operating budgets.
I have made it a priority to transform USDA into a high-
performing and diverse organization. Under our Cultural
Transformation initiative, we are focusing on improving several
aspects of employee culture, including leadership
accountability, employee development, talent management, labor
relations, customer focus, and diversity of the workforce. By
strengthening management operations and engaging employees,
USDA will also improve customer service; increase employment
satisfaction; and implement strategies to enhance leadership,
performance, diversity, and inclusion.
This in-depth evaluation and improvement of our operations
provided a firm foundation for us to develop the fiscal year
2013 budget. For 2013, the budget we are proposing reflects the
difficult choices we are making to control spending, while
maintaining investments that are critical to long-term economic
growth and job creation.
In total, the 2013 budget we are proposing before this
subcommittee is $141 billion, an increase of $6.9 billion above
the 2012 estimate. Of the increase, $6.4 billion is for
mandatory programs, due primarily to a one-time shift in the
timing of certain crop insurance costs mandated by the 2008
farm bill. The budget also increases funding for the nutrition
assistance programs to fully fund estimated participation
levels. As we continue to create jobs and grow the economy,
fewer families will need nutrition assistance.
For discretionary programs, our budget proposes $19.3
billion, approximately $478 million above the 2012 level. The
majority of the increase is for the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and
agricultural research. The discretionary funding request
reflects the Department's continued efforts to innovate,
modernize, and be better stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.
Discretionary spending is partially offset through about $1
billion of proposed limits on selected mandatory programs and
other adjustments. For 2013, further administrative
efficiencies, realignment of staff, and other actions are
proposed to reduce costs. In addition, the budget proposes to
reduce or terminate selected programs and reallocate resources
to fund targeted investments in priority programs and
infrastructure to provide a foundation for sustainable economic
growth.
This budget provides the resources we need to effectively
deliver the level of service our customers and your
constituents expect from USDA--whether it is applying for a
farm operating loan, enrolling more acres into conservation
programs, supporting business creation, seeking nutrition
assistance, or any of the multitude of services provided by our
dedicated workforce. Any further reduction in funding for our
back office operations would significantly impair our ability
to deliver critical services and would imperil our efforts to
manage an increasingly complex workload with less money and
fewer workers.
Reducing the deficit is a critical part of the President's
economic plan. The long-term stability of the economy depends
on whether we have the will to act now. Farmers and ranchers
know the importance of a healthy economy, which raises incomes
and increases demand for their products. Therefore, the 2013
budget reflects the President's Plan for Economic Growth and
Deficit Reduction. The President's plan reduces the deficit by
$32 billion over 10 years by eliminating direct farm payments,
decreasing crop insurance subsidies, and better targeting
conservation funding to high-priority areas.
As Congress initiates its deliberations on the
reauthorization of the farm bill, we must remember that
American agriculture has achieved its success today because of
the policies and the investments that have been made over many
decades. We are here because we've maintained a strong safety
net so there is adequate financial help when times are tough
and disaster strikes. We have supported research that has led
to a significant increase in agricultural productivity and
promoted vibrant markets. We are also here because policies in
the farm bill for research, renewable energy, and broadband are
providing rural America the tools to take advantage of new
economic opportunities. Statutory authority for all disaster
programs expired on September 30, 2011; accordingly, USDA
cannot provide assistance through these programs to producers
for losses due to natural disasters occurring after that date.
As the farm bill is drafted, I encourage Congress to provide
USDA the tools and the flexibility needed to address the
challenges faced by American producers.
Our 2013 budget protects the farm safety net, while
achieving the President's goal for deficit reduction. Income
support programs, including 2012 direct payments, 2013 counter-
cyclical payments, and Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE)
payments, are expected to total about $4.9 billion and outlays
under the Federal crop insurance program are projected to reach
$9.3 billion. Despite a strong farm economy, demand for USDA
farm loans remains strong due, in part, to tighter private
credit standards including higher down-payment requirements.
The 2013 budget provides nearly $4.8 billion for loans to meet
the expected demand for financing. The requested loan levels
will serve nearly 30,000 farmers.
In order to better serve producers with faster and simpler
service, the budget continues to fund IT modernization
activities of our Farm Service Agency (FSA). This investment
will improve the Agency's ability to deliver increasingly
complex farm program benefits, securely, reliably, and rapidly.
Since 2003, staffing levels at FSA have declined over 30
percent, making investments in IT infrastructure even more
important.
One of USDA's most important objectives is to protect our
abundant natural resources. Over the last 3 years, we enrolled
a record number of acres of private working lands in
conservation programs. These programs help to preserve the
soil, improve water quality, and promote wildlife diversity and
add hundreds of millions of dollars to local economies in rural
areas. For 2013, the budget provides approximately $6.2 billion
to support approximately 358 million acres in farm bill
conservation programs.
For the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the
2013 budget proposes $828 million for conservation operations.
NRCS will continue efforts to leverage technical assistance
funds through agreements with its traditional partners, such as
conservation districts, as well as with nonprofit organizations
and State and local agencies. This approach of voluntary
conservation works. That is why we are embracing locally driven
conservation programs and entering partnerships that focus on
large landscape-scale conservation programs, such as the
Chesapeake Bay, the Bay-Delta region in California, the
Mississippi River Basin, Gulf Coast, and the Great Lakes.
Our budget for 2013 contributes significantly to the
economic growth goals of the White House Rural Council by
continuing to fund programs that promote renewable energy, job
training, infrastructure investment, access to capital, and
green jobs throughout rural America. Approximately $6.1 billion
in direct loans will be made available to support the
transformation from fossil fuels to cleaner technologies.
Allowing financing for environmental upgrades will support the
continued development of a national clean energy strategy.
Almost $1 billion in loans will be used to support rural
business and entrepreneurs, which will put more people back to
work. USDA's efforts, including a regional approach to wealth
and job creation, is one reason why the unemployment rate is
dropping more quickly in rural America than anywhere else in
the country. We are giving renewed opportunity to the nearly 50
million people who live in those areas who don't necessarily
farm.
Cutting edge research remains key to the United States
retaining its competitive edge and global leadership in
agricultural productivity--estimated to need to increase 70 to
100 percent by 2050 to meet growing global demands for food.
The correlation between research and improved productivity
could not be clearer. As a result of research at USDA, our land
grant universities, and the private sector, American
agriculture ranks second in productivity gains of all segments
of the U.S. economy since 1980. Over the past 60 years, yields
per acre of major crops--corn, soy, wheat, and cotton--have
doubled, tripled, and in some cases even quadrupled. At the
same time, livestock production and specialty crop production
have become far more efficient. These incredible productivity
gains were achieved through a sustained investment in research.
We will continue to support a robust research program that will
ensure sustainable agricultural production, economic growth for
growers and greater choice for consumers. The 2013 budget
proposes funding of $325 million for the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative (AFRI), an increase of $60.5 million, and
$1.1 billion for our Agricultural Research Service (ARS). We
will continue to focus additional research dollars in key
areas, such as biofuel feedstocks, livestock and crop
production and protection, and enhancing American agriculture's
ability to meet growing global demand sustainably.
Because we are still in a recovering economy, USDA
recognizes the need to support those in need by ensuring access
to safe and nutritious food, which is essential to the healthy
development of every American child and to the well-being and
productivity of every American family. The budget fully funds
the expected requirements for the Department's three major
nutrition assistance programs--WIC, the National School Lunch
Program, and SNAP.
The Department has had great success in promoting healthy
eating habits and active lifestyles. Too many adults and
children have poor diets and gain excessive weight contributing
to poor health and increased medical costs. The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention data show that the prevalence of
obesity among children tripled from 1970 to 2008 and it doubled
among adults. However, data for 2009-2010 show the obesity rate
for both children and adults has stopped increasing. Policies
aimed at increasing access to more nutritious diets, promoting
eating habits consistent with the Dietary Guidelines and
encouraging healthy lifestyles are partly responsible for this
change.
One of the key challenges for providing healthier school
meals is to modernize cafeteria equipment appropriately so
schools can prepare attractive, wholesome meals with more whole
grain, fruit and vegetables, and less fat and saturated fat.
Helping schools to upgrade the nutritional quality of meals
served is essential. So an important part of the budget request
is $35 million to continue competitive grants to help schools
purchase equipment to serve healthier meals as well as to
expand the breakfast program. These grants will help about
10,000 schools across America.
The budget not only supports domestic food assistance, but
also provides $1.4 billion to support programs that further the
administration's global food security objectives, including
those supporting preschool and school feeding programs carried
out under the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education
and Child Nutrition Program. In fiscal year 2013, the McGovern-
Dole program is expected to benefit more than 4 million women
and children. Through the U.S. Government's leadership in
global food security, we advance global stability and
prosperity by improving the most basic of human conditions--the
need that families and individuals have for a reliable source
of quality food and sufficient resources to purchase it.
The Obama administration and USDA are committed to
partnering with rural communities to increase their economic
competitive by helping them provide residents access to quality
healthcare services, modern library facilities and school
buildings, and reliable emergency equipment and services.
Financing totaling $2 billion, an increase of approximately
$700 million, will provide assistance to over 1,700 rural
communities. Investing in rural communities is essential for
growth and job creation.
Helping rural residents obtain safe and affordable housing
is also a key to maintaining stable communities and creating
jobs. The 2013 President's budget requests a significant level
of funding for housing programs. USDA continues to request that
single family housing assistance be provided primarily through
loan guarantees. The 2013 budget includes funding to support
$24 billion for guaranteed loans. USDA's single family housing
direct loan program is funded at $653 million, and will be
targeted to teachers in rural areas, and very-low-income
recipients of mutual and self help grants. These funds will
create job opportunities and make the dream of home ownership a
reality for over 184,000 families in rural America.
Since the founding of President's Obama's Food Safety
Working Group in 2009, USDA has collaborated extensively with
other Federal partners to safeguard the food supply, prevent
foodborne illnesses and improve consumers' knowledge about the
food they eat. USDA is working to strengthen Federal efforts
and develop strategies that emphasize a three dimensional
approach to prevent foodborne illness: Prioritizing prevention;
strengthening surveillance and enforcement; and improving
response and recovery. Between 2000 and 2010, USDA reached a
national goal of reducing E. coli rates by 50 percent, largely
because of strengthened beef safety policy and enforcement. In
2011, stricter Salmonella and Campylobacter performance
standards were implemented to reduce these pathogens in turkeys
and young chickens, which are expected to prevent as many as
25,000 foodborne illnesses annually.
Despite this success, we can and must do a better job of
ensuring the safety of meat and poultry products regulated by
USDA, but we need to do it more efficiently and effectively.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) recently
published a proposed regulation that will prevent thousands of
food-borne illnesses, streamline poultry inspections, and
reduce spending by approximately $90 million over the first 3
years of implementation. We will revise current procedures and
remove outdated regulatory requirements that do not help combat
foodborne illness. The new procedures will use taxpayer dollars
more effectively and efficiently; even with these program
efficiencies, the budget includes approximately $1 billion for
FSIS.
The economic vitality and quality of life in rural America
and the U.S. economy at large depends on a competitive,
efficient, and productive agricultural system. In an era of
market consolidation and intense competition, producers rely on
fair and open access to markets and control over their
decisions to thrive. Producers also rely on animal and plant
resources being protected against the introduction of foreign
agricultural pests and diseases. For 2013, the budget includes
over $880 million in discretionary funding to improve
agricultural market competitiveness and production for the
overall benefit of consumers and producers.
We have taken a close look at the budget for the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service and have proposed a number of
program reductions and implemented identified program
efficiencies to ensure that scarce resources are being used
efficiently. The budget achieves savings through a variety of
means. It includes decreases for activities where eradication
campaigns have been successful, such as boll weevil, and for
pests and diseases where management is currently more prudent
than eradication, such as emerald ash borer. Savings are also
possible in animal disease testing while still meeting
international standards. Further, the budget achieves other
savings by acknowledging the role of the producer and other
cooperators to directly reduce certain pests and diseases, such
as Johne's disease. The budget also proposes modest increases
to improve overall animal disease traceability and to provide
protections against animal diseases that could impact human
health. At the requested budget level, we estimate we will
prevent and mitigate about $1.18 billion in damages as a result
of selected plant and animal health monitoring and surveillance
efforts.
USDA's central Departmental Management provides human
resource, procurement, information technology, and financial
management oversight and services to agencies. Departmental
staff offices provide legal and economic support,
communications coordination, and program appeal hearings for
the Department's program activities. These activities are vital
to USDA's success in creating opportunities for America's
farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. The 2012
appropriations act made deep cuts in funding for these offices.
Under these reduced funding levels, we took prudent actions to
maintain critical functions needed to support the agencies'
effective delivery of program operations. But further
reductions in these areas cannot be sustained without
deterioration in service. For 2013, the budget proposes funding
to ensure that these offices maintain the staffing levels
needed to provide leadership, oversight, and coordination.
These efforts are critical to making the Department an
efficient and effective organization.
Since coming to USDA, I have made it a priority to resolve
all of the civil rights cases facing the Department which the
administration inherited. During this time, we have resolved
large-scale class action lawsuits involving allegations of past
discrimination by Black and Native American farmers and
ranchers and provided an additional path to justice for women
and Hispanic farmers and ranchers who allege discrimination. We
have corrected past errors, learned from mistakes, and charted
a stronger path for the future where all USDA employees treat
all Americans with dignity and respect. The 2013 budget builds
upon our progress by increasing funding for selected key
priorities that will improve USDA's handling of civil rights
matters and will address claims of potential discrimination in
the delivery of programs.
In conclusion, the President is deeply committed to
reducing the deficit so that the economy can continue to grow
over the longer term. This is a responsible, balanced budget
that continues to meet key priorities and is consistent with
the President's commitment. We will continue to achieve
significant progress in administering more complex programs
with fewer staff and resources by adopting reforms that will
improve our programs and service to our customers.
At this time, I will be glad to answer questions you may
have on our budget proposals.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Secretary Vilsack.
WIC PROGRAM FUNDING
Mr. Secretary, the fiscal year 2013 budget includes $422
million increase for WIC. Do you believe this budget is
sufficient to cover the demand for the WIC program? How will
the Department adjust should cost food costs and participation
increase in 2013?
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, we do believe it is
adequate. We do believe it's based on accurate estimates. We're
a bit off this year, and so we wanted to be doubly sure that we
focused on maintaining the WIC program so that there weren't
waiting lines. We know that's something the Congress does not
want us to have. But, also point out that we are expecting and
anticipating that the food inflation will be moderate in
comparison to last year. We saw fairly significant spikes at
various points in time. We don't expect to see quite the high
level of food price increases that we experienced last year.
So, we do believe that that estimate is accurate.
SNAP CONTINGENCY FUND
Senator Kohl. Mr. Secretary, the food stamp program, which
is now called SNAP, saw a $2 billion increase to its
contingency fund. This is not a small amount of money. Why is
this additional amount of money needed, given the current state
of the economy? Do you envision using any of the contingency?
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, what we have seen with
reference to SNAP is a plateauing of our SNAP numbers, which is
obviously a good sign, may very well be reflective of the fact
that we're beginning to see an improved economy.
Having said that, as noted earlier, high energy costs could
potentially derail that recovery, and so we want to be in a
position that if things don't continue to proceed in a positive
way that we can respond to the nutritional needs of families,
and also continue to focus on the fact that their nutrition
assistance programs are not just for the struggling families,
but it is, in a sense, part of the overall program to ensure
the safety net for our producers. Sixteen cents of every food
dollar goes into a farmer's pocket. So, as we look at the
totality of our support, and help, and assistance for our
farmers and producers, you have to look at all of the programs,
including SNAP.
SNAP PROGRAM INTEGRITY
Senator Kohl. Mr. Secretary, over the past few months we've
heard a lot about the integrity of the SNAP program. This
program provides a crucial safety net for millions of people.
We certainly need to ensure that this program is managed in the
most effective and efficient manner possible. What is your
Department doing to address waste, fraud, and abuse in this
program?
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, let me start off by
pointing out that the fraud rates and the error rates are at
historic lows. We've taken a number of steps.
First, as it relates to individuals, we have in place a
program that will allow us to check against death records,
Social Security records, et cetera, to make sure that people
are not inappropriately using other's identity. We also have a
program for those individuals who live near border States to
ensure that they don't try to collect in a number of States.
I will tell you that in 2010, our latest numbers, nearly
800,000 investigations were conducted by States, in terms of
individuals, and more than 44,000 individuals were disqualified
from the program as a result of being disqualified in those
inspections.
We have looked at approximately 15,000 businesses, stores,
and we have an alert program, which allows us to begin looking
at 18 different demographic factors and demographic pieces of
information and data about how SNAP proceeds are being
processed.
For example, if we see a continuation of even no-cent
purchases, $35, $50 even, that is a tip-off for us to really do
a more thorough investigation of how the program is being
utilized.
We are also making sure that if a location is disqualified
from the program, that there's not a transfer of ownership that
is basically hiding the previous owner, so we're going into
greater detail in terms of looking at the paperwork of these
transfers.
So, we take all of this very, very seriously. We understand
it's important and necessary to maintain the integrity of these
programs. While we are pleased that we are at record lows,
we're not satisfied. We want to continue to work to ensure the
integrity of these programs.
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE POULTRY INSPECTION
Senator Kohl. Thank you. The Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) program, is responsible for ensuring that the
Nation's commercial supply of meat, poultry, and processed egg
products is safe and wholesome. This is done to a large degree
by Federal inspectors and meat processing plants.
However, FSIS's budget includes a $13 million cut in
funding associated with implementing new methods of poultry
inspection and reducing staff by 500 employees. Certain
inspection responsibilities would shift from Federal inspectors
to company employees.
In light of continuing outbreaks of food-borne illness,
we're concerned that this decision may put consumers at risk
solely for budget savings. Do you believe this new inspection
method will keep our food safe? What training will be required
of company employees prior to assuming these new tasks?
Currently, FSIS inspectors can evaluate up to 35 birds per
minute. The new process is supposed to be five times faster,
and is this safe for workers?
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, thank you for asking that
question. First of all, let me suggest to you that we believe
that this process will actually make the food safer, not as
safe, but safer. And the reason for this is, based on the fact
that we have had a number of pilot facilities around the
country for a number of years use this new system that we're
proposing, and from that, the data suggests that we can save
5,200 food-borne illness incidences as a result of this new
system.
Second, it's important to know that essentially what we're
doing in terms of company inspection is not so much in terms of
food inspection and in terms of food safety, it has more to do
with the cosmetic appearance of the poultry. At the beginning
of the process, we are currently using individuals to look for
defects in the cosmetic nature of poultry, which we think is
really more about the marketing of the product, not the safety
of it.
What we'd like to be able to do is to have the company
assume that responsibility for cosmetic review, and then shift
the responsibility of the people that we currently have on that
line to taking a look at the locations along the line where the
hazards are greatest, and beef up that effort.
It is true that this will result ultimately over time in
roughly 500 to 800 fewer positions, but it will also result in
more than 1,000 people actually receiving a higher paying job
and a more sophisticated job, for which there will be
additional training. We expect and anticipate that this will be
factored in or phased in over a couple-of-years period in order
to ensure the training is accurate.
As it relates to the worker safety question, we are going
to institute a study at the beginning of this process. We have
a study, but we want to make sure that the results of that
study are verified. And we are going to essentially look at a
very complicated review of the safety of workers. If we see a
problem with the safety, we will obviously adjust accordingly.
The last thing I would say is that this whole process, this
review process, this inspection process has been peer reviewed.
And I think that the review suggests very strongly that this
will actually result in a safer system, a safer food supply. It
just happens to also save money for the Government and for the
companies, but it is primarily for food safety that we're
looking at this.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Vilsack. Thank you.
Senator Kohl. Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
WIC PROGRAM INCREASES IN CALIFORNIA
Mr. Secretary, in the WIC program, I think there's been,
particularly in California, an increase in costs. It's the
largest program, of course, but it's increased a whole lot
faster than in other States. And I wonder if you could tell us
a little bit about what you're doing to look at that, and what
might be the cause for that.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, there may be a number of
reasons, but the one that concerns us the most is that there
are very, very small stores that have dramatically overpriced
products in the WIC package. And we have advised the State of
California that this has taken place. We have asked the State
of California to first and foremost stop any further approvals
or permission for those sized stores to continue to participate
in the WIC program. We've asked them to review their protocols
for the analysis of those smaller stores, and we have been
advised by the State of California that they will be coming up
with a new regime this spring that will address in a very
serious way, in a very concrete way, and a very quick way, the
fact that there have been stores that have taken advantage of
folks, and taken advantage of this program.
So, that's one of the concerns that we've had, and we've
notified the State, the State has responded, and they are in
the process of fixing the problem.
Senator Blunt. Just a curiosity here. I'm glad you're
looking at this carefully, and it sounds like you're working
with them to solve it. Do these stores have a different section
for WIC customers, or do they just assume that most people
won't buy the more expensive gallon of milk, the more expensive
loaf of bread, or whatever they're pricing at this higher rate?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I'm not sure if they have a
different section. My understanding was, and I could be wrong
about this, that this was sort of mixed in with their overall
operation, and basically taking a fairly significant advantage
of folks. When we're seeing the price of various items being
two, three, four, maybe even higher at times what you would
normally see in a regular grocery store. And I think one of the
keys for us, as this is----
Senator Blunt. Did you say two, three, or four times as
high?
Secretary Vilsack. Or higher.
Senator Blunt. To understand this, if you're a WIC
recipient, you have a coupon that allows you to get this
product that has nothing to do really with the price of the
product where you buy it.
Secretary Vilsack. That's correct. And then the grocery
store or the convenience store puts in a bill, if you will, for
reimbursement for that, and were charging a substantial amount
for that product far, far in excess of what the market was
currently charging for that product, whether it be cereal, or
whatever it might be.
We noticed this in our review of the data, and we contacted
the State and said this is a serious problem. First and
foremost, what we are going to tell you is we don't want any
further businesses of this size, if you will, in these high-
risk areas to basically be permitted, and then second, we want
you to take this very seriously and rethink the way in which
you are providing oversight. As you know, these programs, the
administrative oversight is initially at the State level to
provide oversight so that this doesn't happen.
And, again, I think California did respond. Governor Brown
and his team have looked at this, and they said, yes, you're
right. This is not right. We're going to fix it, and we're
going to fix it quickly.
Senator Blunt. Do you feel like this might be happening on
maybe even a lesser level, but in other places?
NUTRITION PROGRAMS FRAUD DETECTION
Secretary Vilsack. I'm not aware of it happening in other
States, Senator. I know that we're looking at this, and being
careful about it. And the point I would make, with reference to
nutrition programs, generally, is--as we look at the farm bill,
and as we talk about this issue--I think we need to take a look
at the definition of stores that qualify for these various
programs, because right now we see a lot of issues with
relatively small facilities. That's where many of our concerns
are relative to error rates or fraud in many of these nutrition
programs. So, I think we really need to be careful about the
permission we grant. There are more than a quarter-of-a-million
stores, for example, that provide SNAP, and a relatively small
percentage of those stores sell a disproportionate amount of
SNAP food. It's maybe less than 20 percent sells 80 percent of
the food. That type of ratio. So, I think we need to really
take a look at that.
Senator Blunt. I'm going to ask a technology question next,
so it may be the answer.
Is there any way your system can monitor whether some area
is way out of bounds on pricing of specific products?
Secretary Vilsack. I think there is. Certainly, in a couple
of programs we do have that review, and we're continuing to
look at ways in which we can mine data that we collect to be
able to identify problems, as I said earlier.
For example, if we see a store where there are a lot of
even purchases. I mean no one goes into a grocery store and
gets $35 worth of groceries. They get $35.18 or $35.16. We see
a pattern of that. That gives us a tip that there's a problem
there, and that triggers a review and investigation.
Senator Blunt. And you say for both WIC and SNAP this is
something that you're watching carefully.
Secretary Vilsack. Yes. And that's why we had 15,000 store
reviews. That's why we had nearly 800,000 individual
investigations and reviews, in terms of the program. And that's
why several hundred stores were disqualified, and 44,000
individuals were taken off the program. And that's why our
fraud rate and our error rate are at historic lows.
Senator Blunt. On technology, I thought about that. I
thought well, I probably ought to go to this technology
question, too.
FARM SERVICE AGENCY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
With the FSA offices, I understand the technology there has
been about as old as any technology anybody's still using, and
to some extent, individual farm records were essentially
captive to whatever machine they were in 1984, or whatever. You
could tell me more about this. The Modernize and Innovate the
Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS) program is the program
that would upgrade that?
Secretary Vilsack. That's correct. And we spent the last
several years, with the resources provided by this
subcommittee, building the design for the new system. And the
good news, this year we'll begin to see actual on-the-ground
construction or building of the system, starting with acreage
reports, and starting with some of the farm record development
as a strong foundation. And then the following year, we will
build on top of that foundation, and hopefully, within the next
year or 2, our farmers will begin to see a much more convenient
approach from the FSA offices. And hopefully, we will get to a
point in those places where there's sufficient broadband
Internet access that folks can work literally from their homes.
Senator Blunt. From their home. Now, my belief is that the
equipment that the FSA office has been using is like mid-1980s.
Secretary Vilsack. It's not so much the equipment. It's the
software.
Senator Blunt. It's the software system.
Secretary Vilsack. Yes. And so when you have a farm bill
every 5 years, what happens is oftentimes those systems, many
of them have to be manually coded, if you can imagine that. And
that's why it takes a long time to implement things. But, MIDAS
is designed to address that. And it's taken a number of years
to do it right, a lot of feedback from those who work on the
ground, in the field, to make sure that we design it properly,
and to test it properly.
Senator Blunt. And this has almost $12 million in it. Would
that complete MIDAS?
Secretary Vilsack. Oh, no. No. No. It's far more than that,
Senator. This is a very, very significantly expensive
operation.
Senator Blunt. There's a $12 million increase, though.
$11.78 million, I guess.
Secretary Vilsack. We are asking for a substantial increase
this year. Just to give you a sense of this, the
implementation, in fiscal year 2011, we asked for $45 million.
In fiscal year 2012, it's $112 million. And the reason it goes
from $45 million to $112 million is because we're not actually
building the infrastructure to do this. And we're going to
build the foundation this year, and a lesser amount next year
should complete the process.
Overall, we had anticipated and estimated years ago that
this would cost several hundred million dollars, and that
estimate is going to be correct.
Senator Blunt. So, in fiscal year 2012, the budget year
we're in right now, this is the big year for MIDAS.
Secretary Vilsack. This is the big year. And fiscal year
2013, we're reducing it, but it's still a substantial amount of
money. It's nearly $100 million. So, it's less than this year,
but it's still substantially more than the previous years,
because we're now building it, as opposed to designing it and
testing it.
Senator Blunt. And this is more of a software problem than
a hardware problem?
Secretary Vilsack. That's my understanding. I'm not a
technical expert, and maybe someone here on the panel can
amplify on this. But it's primarily----
Senator Blunt. No one's raising their hand on the panel.
Secretary Vilsack. It's primarily.
Secretary Blunt. You're on your own.
Secretary Vilsack. It's, as I understand it, primarily a
software issue. If I'm wrong about that, we will let you know.
But the reality is, it is an expensive proposition, but
eventually, it should get to the point where if you have
Internet access, you will be able to be at your kitchen table,
call up your files, and basically be able to work with FSA
offices online. That's the goal.
[The information follows:]
MIDAS focuses on software, specifically adapting commercial-off-
the-shelf software (COTS) to run Farm Program applications in a Web-
accessible environment. The Department's Common Computing Environment
(CCE) focuses on refreshing the system hardware and upgrading the
network used by the USDA Service Centers.
Regarding MIDAS, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) has completed the
initial design for MIDAS, which includes business requirements
documentation, design of re-engineered processes, improved access to
data, and creation of a network comprised of Service Center employees
to ensure the new software meets the needs of the business. The MIDAS
Program is now in the build phase, during which the system software is
configured to meet the requirements, and all technical components are
set up and tested.
In fiscal year 2012 the emphasis of CCE is network optimization
which is the effort to replace the aging infrastructure--desktop
computers, servers, data storage capacity, bandwidth to support
applications--to ensure that the core network infrastructure meets the
demands of many of USDA's and FSA's IT modernization efforts including
MIDAS. At completion, it will be possible for farmers and ranchers to
access MIDAS online, via Internet access, e.g., ``from your kitchen
table.''
FARM SERVICE AGENCY OFFICE CONSOLIDATION
Senator Blunt. Now, if you go to a new FSA office, based on
consolidation, will your records be there? Do you know that
they're there?
Secretary Vilsack. Not only will the records be there, but
most likely, the person who dealt with you at the previous
office will also be there. There are about 170 people that are
impacted specifically by what we're proposing, and all 170 of
those folks will still be able to work at FSA, if they choose
to do so.
Senator Blunt. Mr. Chairman, do you think we'll have time
for a second round?
Senator Kohl. Yes.
Senator Blunt. If so, I'll go ahead and wait for that
second round for other questions.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much.
Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought Senator
Moran was here before me.
Senator Kohl. I thought I'd rotate.
Senator Pryor. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FARM SERVICE AGENCY OFFICE CONSOLIDATION CRITERIA
Mr. Secretary, I think a bad way to start a hearing is when
one of us writes you a letter on February 21, and we don't get
the response until March 28, at 4 p.m., hand-delivered the day
before a hearing. I'd like to follow-up on some of the
questions I asked in that letter, one, in particular, that you
did not answer. And that would be my question No. 2 in the
letter, where I ask you ``to provide all relevant criteria
relating to the closure of offices within specific distances,
along with the formula used to determine mileage between county
offices. I'd appreciate if this included copies of mapping
data, provided by any internal or external source, used to
determine the mileage between all proposed office closures in
Arkansas.''
And the reason I ask that is because you have chosen to use
Euclidean miles, which is defined ``as the crow flies,'' as
compared to road miles. Had you used road miles, 7 of the 10
offices in Arkansas would not be closing now, but you chose to
use Euclidean miles. So, could you tell us why you decided to
use ``as the crow flies,'' instead of the mileage that people
actually have to drive to get to the office?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, we had a process that involved
not just the offices in DC, but also the State offices that
assisted us in making the calculations. And candidly, we're
confronted and faced with two realities in the farm service
world. One is that over a period of time, we have seen
operating budgets reduced by the Congress. And second, 10 years
ago, there were 18,000 people working for FSA. Today, there are
around 12,000 people. So, we have seen one-third fewer workers.
We've seen an increase in workload. We were faced with a very
difficult decision, whether we would take a look at roughly 130
offices that were within 20 miles ``as the crow flies,'' as you
have indicated, for closure, or whether we would institute
furloughs or layoffs. And I will tell you, sir, from my
perspective, as long as I'm Secretary, the last thing I want to
do is furlough a worker or lay one off. And if I can prevent
it, that's what I'm going to do.
Senator Pryor. Why did you choose to use ``as the crow
flies,'' as opposed to road miles? Was it to close more
offices?
Secretary Vilsack. Not necessarily. It was what the staff
recommended. It was not necessarily to close more offices. It
was basically to make sure that we were operating within the
directive of the Congress. The Congress was not clear, and was
not definitive and specific. It just said 20 miles. So, we felt
that that was the simplest way to do it.
And it's true that there may be situations and
circumstances in your State and other States where it may take
longer, or it may require more of a distance, but again, the
reality is the choices. You either do that, or you basically
create potential chaos in 2,000 offices with furloughs or
potentially chaos in a number of offices with layoffs. We felt
focusing on offices that had no employees, we found that 35 of
the 131 offices had no full-time employees. Offices that had
one employee, where if you were sick or if there was a ballgame
you needed to see, there was no one there to service the needs.
It was a better idea to basically provide for larger staffed
offices, and perhaps within 20 miles or so of where the
previous office was.
BLUEPRINT FOR STRONGER SERVICE
Senator Pryor. Now, I've heard that your proposed savings
on this are going to be $150 million. Is that per year?
Secretary Vilsack. No, sir. That's not accurate.
Senator Pryor. How much do you save on this?
Secretary Vilsack. The office closings themselves are about
$6.5 million. The $150 million figure comes from a combination
of a number of things that we've done. A reduction in travel, a
reduction in supply purchases, a reduction in conferences, and
the administrative services process, in which we've identified
379 recommendations for changes internally within USDA, 27 of
which we're in the process of implementing. An example is
taking over 700 cell phone contracts that we had at USDA and
consolidating them into 10 to 15 contracts, so we get quantity
discounts, things of that nature. When you combine all of those
steps, that's where you get the $150 million number.
Senator Pryor. Yes. That's a helpful clarification. All
right.
FARM SERVICE AGENCY OFFICE CONSOLIDATION
I want to ask you about three offices in Arkansas. I'll
probably have to come back on the second two. But, we have one
in Izard County, in Melbourne, Arkansas, that is 18.5 miles
``as the crow flies,'' but it's 21.8 miles to the nearest FSA
office if you drive it. The problem is, to drive it on those
highways and those roads it's 44 minutes each way. So, it's 1.5
hours roundtrip, if you want to go over to that next county's
office and pick up a form, or whatever it may be.
Now, in the farm bill in 2008, in the closure criteria, we
use the phrase, ``To the maximum extent possible,'' which, to
me, sounds like we gave you discretion on hardship cases like
this, where it may be technically 20 miles away, even though
this is longer than 20 road miles away. It seems like you would
have some discretion to make exceptions or to understand the
hardship that you'd be causing on people to close the office.
Did you make any exceptions for anyone in the country?
Secretary Vilsack. We've not made exceptions as of today,
Senator. And the reality is that I think probably every single
member of Congress and every Senator could probably make a good
persuasive local case for why a particular office should stay
open and not be closed. This is a very difficult set of
circumstances that we're confronted with. We have less money
and we have substantially fewer people.
We've had a substantial increase in the number of
retirements. In order to avoid substantial layoffs and
furloughs, we had to have an early retirement, an early
separation package, which in the last 15 months we've seen
7,000 of our most experienced people leave.
This is not an easy process. We have tried desperately to
avoid furloughs and layoffs. That's basically where I'm coming
from. And I'm not hiding anything here. We're doing everything
we possibly can to try to squeeze out every buck that we can in
a way that allows us to continue a record amount of activity.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Chairman Kohl, thank you. Mr. Secretary,
thank you for being here.
Mr. Secretary, you're going to be in Kansas in a few days,
a couple of weeks, and I wanted to welcome you to our State.
Very much appreciate you accepting the opportunity to speak at
a Landon lecture in Manhattan, Kansas. Also want to thank you
for your ongoing and continued support for the National Bio and
Agri-Science Research facility and your efforts to see that it
gets built.
I want to ask a couple of questions, and I'm going to try
to ask them so I can get them both in in the 5 minutes that I'm
allowed.
UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND
Two different topics. First of all, Rural Utilities Service
(RUS), it's a lending agency that you have a jurisdiction over.
It provides loans for electric, water, sewer, and
telecommunications. The telecommunications loan portfolio is
more than $4 billion. In October, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) adopted an order that significantly modifies
the Universal Service Fund and inter-carrier compensation
formulas. On February 15, I wrote you a letter. I'm not yet
complaining that it hasn't been responded to, but I've raised
this topic with USDA, with you, in particular, trying to
discover what your analysis is about the impact of the FCC's
Universal Service Fund and inter-carrier compensation order,
what the consequences are to the RUS loan portfolio, as it
relates to telecommunications.
Are you concerned with that order? If so, what's RUS USDA
doing to explain to the FCC and within the administration? I'm
worried that the potential now exists for significant loan
defaults of RUS, because one of the main features by which a
rural telephone company has to repay their loan to RUS is
Universal Service Fund dollars that no longer will be flowing
to those telephone companies.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I'm not sure if that's one
question or two.
Senator Moran. That was one question.
Secretary Vilsack. Okay. Do you want to ask the second one?
Senator Moran. Thank you very much for that opportunity, if
the chairman will let me get by with that.
LEAN FINELY TEXTURED BEEF
The second one is certainly a different topic, but Kansas
is certainly a beef State. And lean finely textured beef has
been front and center in the last few weeks. If lean finely
textured beef is no longer used, it will take 1.5 million more
head of cattle to make up for the lost beef, and the cost to
producers is estimated to be about $15 a head.
You said yesterday, and this is your quote, ``Let me
reiterate, without any equivocation, something that we have
said hundreds of times, this product is safe, and there's no
question about it.'' I would like to make certain that that's a
statement that you believe to be true. And isn't it true that
finely textured beef is just beef?
I notice that one of the newspapers today called it filler.
There's nothing to this product except beef. And I would like
to give you the opportunity to have you explain to us, but to
the consumer the safety of this product.
UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND
Secretary Vilsack. Okay. Senator, let's talk about the
Rural Utilities Service first. That was your first question.
When the FCC proposed its initial order, we did, in fact,
communicate with the FCC about the fact that rural utility
providers count on the Universal Service Fund. They count on
inter-carrier rates. They also count on the infrastructure
assistance that we can provide at USDA. Those three are three
sort of pillars upon which the whole system operates.
And we expressed to them the need for them to consider, as
they put together this proposal, enough flexibility to be able
to address the need for expanded broadband, which we support.
At the same time, recognize that there may be circumstances and
situations where that order may have an impact on a particular
carrier, that we would have to work with those carriers, and
they need to give us the flexibility to do so.
We have asked the folks that we are currently doing
business with to basically give us more information on the
specifics as it relates to their individual operation, so that
we have a better understanding on an individual basis how they
see the potential impact.
We have asked the FCC, as they are flushing out this
process, and it still has not been completed. We've asked them
to take a look at the waiver system that's in place, to give us
that flexibility that we've asked for, and if we have it, then
I think we can make adjustments. We're also aware of the fact
that the regression factor that they're using to calculate
various fees and so forth is also being looked at.
So, this process is not complete. We have weighed in and
asked for an understanding of its impact on individual
operations. We've asked those individual operations to provide
us with information so we could do an appropriate analysis, and
we've also begun our process of figuring out precisely how we
will approach things differently if this ultimately comes to
fruition.
So, we are aware of it. We've engaged in it. We continue to
engage in it. We are sensitive to the concerns that you've
expressed. And we are hopeful that the FCC, with the waiver
process, will give us enough flexibility to be able to address
any anomalies or any concerns that might arise.
LEAN FINELY TEXTURED BEEF
We appreciate the fact that folks are now joining us in a
discussion of lean finely textured beef. We have been talking
about this issue, Senator, for a number of weeks. Sometimes we
have been the only ones talking about it. So, we appreciate
your question.
It is beef. And it is safe. And it's got less fat. It's
something we've been saying for literally almost a month now.
I can't tell you how many times USDA, myself, Dr. Hagen,
and other members of the FSIS family have been quoted or
alluded to in reports, and articles, and broadcasts, and in
news radio interviews about the safety of this product.
We have two issues, two responsibilities to USDA. One is to
attest to the safety of a product. The other is as a purchaser
of items for school lunch and school breakfast programs. In
that context, we have to be responsive to our customers. We're
not in the position to mandate that people do a certain thing
or buy a certain thing, or have a certain thing.
Several hundred school districts have contacted us asking
for choice. We have to be responsive to our customers. We've
provided that choice. But we want to make sure that if they
make that choice, they're making it based on the facts, and
that they're not making it on the assumption or belief that
this product is unsafe, because it is not.
Senator Moran. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. And if
you'd ask somebody in your office to take a look at my February
15 letter to you in regard to RUS, I'd appreciate it.
Thank you.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much.
Senator Brown.
Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
thank you. Again, thank you for your trip to Ohio recently, and
the contribution you made there.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH FACILITIES
We've talked a lot about agriculture research, and I
appreciate the work you've done in Wooster to help us after the
tornado there. Agriculture is my State's--as the case in just
about everybody here, I think--number one industry. Both the
Center for Innovative Food Technologies--near Toledo, and you
met some people from there--and Ohio State University's
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) research station in Wooster
have conducted groundbreaking research in many ways.
Last year, several of the ARS stations, including the North
Appalachian Experimental Watershed Research Station in
Coshocton, Ohio, eastern Ohio, were slated for closure. The
facility provides valuable information on how farming practices
affect water quality, data that is important, particularly
important, given the algal blooms in the Western Lake Erie
basin, which we discussed, and you learned even more about than
you already knew the other day.
This subcommittee provided USDA with the option of
transferring the land and the facility slated for closure at
certain other institutions. Could you just give me sort of an
update? To what extent is USDA open to partnering with eligible
institutions to develop and implement a use for these
facilities? How do you plan to move forward on that, inform us,
and let us know sort of every step of the way, as you go
forward?
Secretary Vilsack. ARS basically has got to follow a
certain set procedure, which we are in the process of doing. We
are certainly amenable to working with partnerships, land grant
universities, and others. In fact, in some of the facilities
that are slated for closure, those discussions, negotiations
have already taken place, and are taking place.
BEGINNING FARMERS
I will say that, if I can take your question to a slightly
different place, not only should we think about the
partnerships with universities, but we have a real problem in
terms of beginning farmers in this country, in terms of how
young people, who might be interested in farming, could get
into farming and be able to afford to get into farming.
To the extent that the Federal Government is the owner of
land, or finds itself with land that it needs to dispose of, we
might want to give consideration to expanding the opportunities
available to ARS to basically lease or sell to beginning
farmers, at a reasonable price that land, to make it a little
bit easier to get young people engaged in farming. The average
age of the farmer today, I'm guessing, is close to 60 years of
age now. And I think it's something that we really need to be
sensitive to.
So, Senator, we are following the rules as the statutes and
regulations require. We are making efforts to reach out and
find out if there is interest. And if there is interest, under
what circumstances the arrangements could be made for the
transfer.
We understand that there are restrictions on what that land
can be used for, and we will follow those prescriptions and
those restrictions.
Senator Brown. Thank you. And I think that your point about
beginning farmers will pique a lot of interest in a lot of
places in Ohio, and we've discussed that. I think your idea is
a good one there, and we will pursue that.
BROADBAND ACCESS
Let me follow-up with a slightly different twist on what
Senator Moran said about broadband. Yesterday, I did my fifth
annual, since 2008, my second year in the Senate, I bring
college presidents from around Ohio to the Capitol for a day,
and we had about 50, 55 of them yesterday. At the dinner the
night before, a number of them were talking about broadband
access or the lack of broadband access. One college president
said he believes about 29 out of Ohio's 88 counties don't have
full broadband access. Only one county has none, until a local
community action agency applied for one of the first ever USDA
rural development broadband grant. What you-all did, and what
we did together in the Recovery Act for the $7 billion, and a
good amount of that went to USDA, and that helped a lot in my
State, but it's still not enough.
We must ensure the funding through the rural broadband loan
program; the community connect programs ensure that funding
provides it direct to the most underserved areas in the most
rural communities.
Tell me what you're doing to ensure that the program
integrity there in bringing services, especially to those
underserved low-income and small communities that all of us
represent.
Secretary Vilsack. With reference to the Recovery Act
proceeds, that was the principal effort on the part of USDA,
was to make sure that we had a focus on areas that were remote
and rural. In some cases, those remote rural areas probably
would not be in a position to support full-blown broadband. We
looked at additional ways in which we could enhance technology
and make it fiscally responsible and accountable. Part of the
Recovery Act money was used to create satellite opportunities
and an upgrade of technology. So, whether it's full-blown
broadband or whether it was an upgrade, we did focus on remote
and rural areas.
As it relates to our regular program, which we're now in
the process of instituting, there's a very small part of what
we get from the Congress that is in the form of grants, and it
is specifically directed, and it is roughly $13 million. It's
not a great deal of money. It's specifically directed to trying
to expand opportunities in remote and rural areas.
In addition to that, there's roughly $25 million that's
available for distance learning and telemedicine grant
opportunities. Then, of the $822 million that is in this pot of
money for telecommunications, about $94 million of it will be
made available for loan guarantees for expansion in rural
areas. So, there is a significant effort here, either through
grants, loans, or the Recovery Act.
We have, in the last 3 years, funded roughly 600 projects.
If you take the Recovery Act, the distance learning, the
telemedicine, and the Connect program, we basically have funded
roughly 600 projects. Now, it doesn't anywhere near address
this from a national perspective, which is why the Commerce
Department has a map that shows where the areas are that still
need attention, and that should drive additional decisions and
future decisions.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this
hearing.
WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Mr. Secretary, I notice in the Department's budget request
that we see described a budget summary of the Watershed
Rehabilitation Program. We've had a good many problems in the
lower Mississippi River Valley with flooding and challenges
that have resulted from erosion, and it has been clear that
there's a lot of money that's going to be needed to repair and
refurbish existing watershed programs, dams, and other
impoundments that have reached the end of their design lives.
The budget request doesn't have a specific request for
funding of any activity in this area, and I wonder what your
suggestion is. Is there going to be a supplemental budget
request submitted, or what is the intention of the
administration in providing assistance to local and district-
wide governments and associations to rehabilitate these
structures that are in need of attention?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, one of the reasons why there is
not an appropriation amount is that at the time these
facilities were constructed, I think there was a basic
understanding that they became a local and State
responsibility. Second, the amount of money that has been
appropriated in that program is relatively small, given what
could very well be a very significant national need.
So, if we're going to do this, I would say two things. One,
it needs to be done on a much larger scale than this budget
conversation we're having today. And two, if we're going to do
it, it needs to be in conjunction with and in partnership with
States and local governments, because they have at least an
equal responsibility, if not a greater responsibility, given
the fact that these structures are theirs.
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Having said that, we are investing a substantial amount of
money in conservation and in landscape-scale efforts to try to
avoid and to try to do a better job of controlling water. We
still have a long way to go, but we're working on it. We have a
record number of acres now enrolled in conservation, and the
budget before you would allow us to add another 29-30 million
acres to the 330 million acres that are currently enrolled of
the 1.4 billion acres that could potentially be subject to
conservation programs of the amount of farmland in this
country.
So, I would say we'd be happy to work with you on a much
larger, much, much larger infrastructure discussion. I mean, I
think this is part of why there has been a suggestion for an
infrastructure bank, why there's been a suggestion for a large-
scale infrastructure appropriations, because when you talk
about $20 or $30 or $40 million, it really has very little
impact on the overall problem that you're alluding to.
Senator Cochran. I appreciate your personal attention to
the situation and your willingness to explore possibilities for
providing some Federal assistance in this area.
CATFISH INSPECTION PROGRAM
One area of interest, too, that I wanted to mention at
today's hearing involved our domestic fish program and the
development of what has become a very substantial financial
investment throughout the southern part of the country. Catfish
inspection and expansion of markets, dealing with competition
from overseas in the United States are all parts of this area
of concern and interest.
I know that as we are preparing for this new farm bill
that's being considered, there's an opportunity for defining
some statutory responsibilities for inspection and standards.
Do you have any information that you can provide the
subcommittee giving us a status report of where we are on
developing an inspection program for domestically produced
catfish?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, can I offer some advice before
I answer your question?
Senator Cochran. Sure.
Secretary Vilsack. If you work on this in the farm bill, to
the extent that you can define what a catfish is, it would be
helpful.
Senator Cochran. You can tell by looking.
Secretary Vilsack. That's what I thought, too, coming from
Iowa, but I found out in this process that there are at least
39 different varieties, and depending upon where you are
domestically, or where you are internationally, catfish is not
necessarily a catfish, which is why we received a substantial
number of comments to the proposal.
As you know, we asked for input from folks to give us a
better understanding of precisely how the world defines
catfish, and we're in the process of evaluating those
responses. And literally, it is a very difficult circumstance
and situation, because depending upon how narrow or how broadly
you define that term, it impacts and affects quite a bit. So,
we're in the process of trying to figure out precisely what was
meant, and there's some conflict in terms of the congressional
history of this. And so, it would be helpful if there was
clarity from the Congress in terms of precisely what variety or
type of catfish you were referring to, or maybe you're
referring to all types of catfish.
Senator Cochran. We look forward to working with you on
this issue. It is very important, and I think it needs our best
efforts.
Secretary Vilsack. I understand, sir.
Senator Kohl. Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
good to see you again.
WATER BANK PROGRAM
I want to thank you for your help on the Water Bank
Program, and your folks are working to implement it. We think
that would be very helpful on Devils Lake. So I just want to
thank you for that.
WIC PROGRAM
Also, I want to bring up the WIC program, specifically
regarding potatoes. I and others feel potatoes need to be
included with fruits and vegetables. Your thoughts?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, the WIC program is basically a
supplemental program. It's designed to supplement and to
encourage nutritious eating. What we do in developing the
package is we take a look at what people are already consuming,
in terms of fruits and vegetables, and then what we try to do
is to amplify or add to that. What we found from the review is
that people are already consuming quite a bit of--the potatoes
are not something that they don't consume. They consume quite a
bit of that. What they don't consume as much of are dark green,
orange vegetables, things of that nature. So, the WIC program
is designed to essentially complement what people are already
deciding to do or already eating.
Senator Hoeven. Are you willing to encourage that potatoes
be included with the WIC supplemental nutrition program? I
think there's a lot of people who feel that it should not have
been left out, and we'd like to see it included. Are you
willing to work towards that objective?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, again, the purpose of this is
to complement what people are already doing. If they're already
consuming enough of one item, it would basically mean that we
would have to reduce our commitment to some other item that
they're not consuming a great deal of, and probably ought to,
if they want to have a balanced and nutritious opportunity for
their young children. So, this is a complementary. This is not
a situation where people aren't eating any potatoes. These are
situations in which people are eating quite a lot of potatoes,
but they aren't eating a lot of the other types of vegetables
and fruits. So what we want to do is make sure that they have
access to those other options.
Senator Hoeven. All right. I understand your point and
would encourage its inclusion.
BLENDER PUMPS
But, I want to move to blender pumps. I believe that you've
looked at funding blender pumps out of the Rural Energy for
America Program (REAP). Is that correct?
Secretary Vilsack. That's right.
Senator Hoeven. And in the President's budget, there's $4.6
million in REAP funding. Give me your thoughts on what portion
of that can and should go to blender pumps. I know you and I
share a common belief that blender pumps are a good thing, can
help give consumers more choice, better pricing, help stimulate
renewable fuel, production, and distribution. What are your
thoughts in terms of what you can put towards blender pump,
promoting blender pumps and helping gas station owners get
blender pumps on their premises?
Secretary Vilsack. I agree, Senator. And I may be
misstating this, and if I have, I'll correct it. I believe we
received instructions from the House that they were not
particularly interested in us using monies for blender pumps.
I'm not sure if there's a prohibition. I think there was at one
point.
I don't know that I'd necessarily want to commit to a
certain percentage, because there are an awful lot of good
ideas that come out of the REAP program. We were a little
concerned about the fact that it was substantially reduced in
this current budget, which made it more difficult for us to do
everything we'd like to do.
We've had 13,000 different projects, energy efficiency,
anaerobic digesters, energy audits, windmill solar systems, as
well as blender pumps. We've funded, I think, a couple hundred,
maybe 250 blender pumps. We obviously want to do more than
that. And depending upon the amount of resources that the
Congress allocates to this program, we're going to continue to
fund blender pumps, if there's not a prohibition restriction.
Senator Hoeven. I know there's been some legislation
offered that would restrict it. I don't know of any restriction
in place. I mean last year, I think the funding was about
$3.4----
Secretary Vilsack. You mean in terms of what went to
blender bumps, or the overall REAP money, because it was more
than that.
Senator Hoeven. Oh. Blender pumps. I think it was around
$3.4. Does that sound right?
Secretary Vilsack. You're probably right.
Senator Hoeven. In any event, I'd like to work with you to
see what we can do. I know there is some pushback on it, but
look, I think in terms of renewable fuels, we're trying to find
more market-based approaches to continue to develop renewables
from the standpoint of giving customers choice and helping with
pricing. I think blender pumps is the way to do it. So, I'm
interested in working with you in the context of your budget as
to how we can do more of it.
I thought REAP might be the best program. You may have
other ideas. If so, I'd love to hear what they are.
Secretary Vilsack. To me, when you deal with the farm bill,
you deal with rural development programs, and you deal with the
energy title within the farm bill, to the extent that we can
have flexibility, that's the key. We may have to have fewer
programs, but if we have flexibility, we can use maybe the
business and industry loan program to work with a consortium,
for example, of convenience store owners to assist them in
putting blender pumps in, as opposed to an individual grant to
an individual business. Maybe that's a possibility. That's
currently not necessarily a possibility under the business and
industry loan program.
Senator Hoeven. Who would we work with on your staff to
really figure out what makes most sense, in terms of trying to
develop this?
Secretary Vilsack. Sarah Bittleman. We'll get you her
contact information, Senator.
Senator Hoeven. Thanks, Secretary.
Secretary Vilsack. Thank you.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much.
FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE II GRANTS
Mr. Secretary, we all know that many, many millions of
people around the world suffer from chronic and acute hunger.
We've seen how rising food prices have caused instability to
some of the most vulnerable populations, and yet, the budget
includes a decrease of $66 million in the Public Law 480
program.
What is the rationale for cutting this program when the
need for food assistance around the world is increasing? And if
less funding is provided for this program, is this
administration prepared to respond to an emergency, as we saw
last year in the Horn of Africa?
INTERNATIONAL FOOD ASSISTANCE
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, we work with our sister agency,
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), to make
sure that we're providing the assistance and help that's
necessary. We have the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, as you
well know, that provides some degree of assistance and help, an
entity that may, for example, be utilized when North Korea is
requesting food assistance. There's a possibility of that.
These are difficult times. If you say to add the money back
that you reduced from that, then the question is, where does it
come from? Does it come from the WIC program? Does it come from
rural development programs? Does it come from the food safety
program? Where does it come from? I mean the reality is we're
dealing with constrained budgets. So, tough choices have to be
made.
We think that there's a substantial amount of money that's
committed to these programs. It's $1.4 billion, plus the
McGovern-Dole program, which we did maintain at a status quo
funding. We think we're still in a position to help millions of
people with this. And we also believe it's not just the United
States' responsibility, which is why we've been working with
General Assembly countries and the Group of Twenty (G-20)
Agricultural Ministers to discuss a more coordinated and global
response to these concerns. A discussion, for example, of
developing virtual reserves, grain reserves, so that we're in a
position to be able to respond internationally and in
partnership in a collaborative effort. That's the reason why we
have the Feed the Future initiative, which is not just designed
to provide food assistance, but also to take a look at how we
might make producers in other countries more productive, so
that they can do a better job of meeting their own needs. So,
we reduce the need for this kind of assistance.
So, I think you have to look at the totality of what we're
proposing, and look at what we're doing internationally to try
to stretch and leverage these resources.
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE FUNDING AND STAFFING
Senator Kohl. Mr. Secretary, the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) promotes the health of animals and
plants and guards against invasive species. The budget proposes
7-percent funding reduction as well as elimination of 151
employees. How do you plan to meet the responsibilities of
APHIS with such severe cuts in funding and staff? Can you
provide assurances that existing safeguards against intrusion
of new invasive pests will not, in fact, be weakened?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, what we have done is we've,
first of all, engaged in a fairly significant process
improvement initiative within APHIS, so that we can do our job
in a quality way, in a better way, and spending less time.
There are a number of permitting regulatory and licensing
responsibilities that APHIS has, where we have substantially
reduced the amount of time. We can provide you and the
subcommittee with a copy of our process improvement manual that
shows the number of days that we've saved from biotechnology
reviews, et cetera. That's one strategy.
[The information follows:]
Streamline Decisions for Genetically Engineered Plants
While maintaining strong oversight to ensure the safety of
genetically engineered (GE) products, APHIS is reforming its processes
so that the time it takes to consider petitions for deregulating the
use of GE crops will be cut in half, reducing to 13-16 months the
potential adoption of new seeds with traits that can deliver a variety
of improvements such as improved yields or reduced inputs. APHIS
announced the start of this process in November 2011 as part of other
streamlining improvements. APHIS reviewed its approval process using
Lean Six Sigma's business process improvement strategy and identified a
number of areas that could be improved, leading to a more timely,
predictable and higher quality process. APHIS has improved the overall
timeline significantly by standardizing and streamlining process steps.
APHIS will also be soliciting public input on pending petitions earlier
in the review process, enabling the agency to improve the quality of
its environmental analyses. By taking these steps, APHIS believes it
can deliver to its customers and the public a more predictable process
for considering and acting on product deregulations. Once the agency
implements all of these business process improvements, a more
predictable timeframe will enable developers to bring products granted
nonregulated status to market more quickly and provide growers with
more choices and access to new technologies sooner, while enabling
APHIS to maintain its mission to protect U.S. agriculture and the
environment from plant pests. In calendar year 2011, USDA made 10
determinations on petitions for nonregulated status for genetically
engineered crops. That is the most determinations in a single year in
more than a decade.
streamline veterinary biologics licensing process
To ensure the best use of resources and work toward meeting the
demand of the biologics industry, APHIS is conducting a business
process improvement review of work flow at the agency's Center for
Veterinary Biologics with the objective of decreasing turnaround times
for veterinary biologics license submissions, reducing the overall time
it takes to process a complete license application by about 100 days, a
savings of 20 percent. Making certain we meet our responsibility of
ensuring that veterinary biologics are pure, safe and effective has
always been the strongest consideration during this process. APHIS
broke the larger licensing process up into smaller, multiple projects
creating a group of projects that will ultimately speed up overall
licensing times. Some of the process improvements include the
electronic workflow of documents and moving from a four-tier labeling
system to a single-tier labeling system. The four-tier labeling system
required a significant amount of information to be printed on product
packages. Rather than have more information on the label, the proposal
is to require a label statement referring the user to a Web site where
basic information regarding efficacy and safety for the product may be
viewed. From this information, the end-user can use personal judgment
in determining which product to use to meet his/her particular
circumstances/needs. The user may also compare efficacy results from
several firms with like products. APHIS projects additional savings
from reductions in reagent/reference production, laboratory testing,
and animal use.
Additional examples of process improvements can be found at USDA's
Web site on the Blueprint for Stronger Service (www.usda.gov/
strongerservice). A summary of some other APHIS actions is included in
the fact sheet for Marketing and Regulatory Programs and a blog on
February 24, 2012, by Administrator Parham.
Secretary Vilsack. The second strategy is that we have
taken a look at the pest and diseases that we are currently
managing and asking the question, Is the strategy that we are
using with reference to specific diseases and pests the
appropriate strategy? Do we have an eradication strategy when,
in fact, a maintenance strategy might be more appropriate and
probably more feasible? Are there circumstances where good
practices by producers will be sufficient to protect against a
reemergence of a particular disease or pest?
As a result of all of those steps, we feel that we can
still do the job that we are required to do and should do in
order to increase and maintain agricultural productivity, even
though we're faced with, again, some difficult budget
discussions and decisions.
The 151 employees, this is basically, we worked our way
through an attrition program. We have a workforce where 50
percent is probably within 5 to 10 years of retirement, and in
many cases, well over the normal retirement age. We're seeing a
lot of folks beginning to retire. So, we're trying to manage
this in a way that allows us to do our job, do it well, but
perhaps do it quicker, more efficiently, and more effectively.
Senator Kohl. All right. Senator Blunt.
BROADBAND PROGRAM RULE
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Secretary, both
Senator Moran and Senator Brown talked about broadband. My
biggest question on broadband continues to be the balance
between the underserved and the unserved. In fact, Senator
Brown used the phrase, ``The most underserved,'' which I assume
the unserved, would be the most underserved.
Talk to me a little about the new rule, and concerns I
would have, without knowing a lot about the rule until you
explain it to me, that we're continuing to encourage
competition, where people have taken their own money and
created a network that somebody's decided is underserved,
because there's no competition, rather than really focusing on
the 15 percent of Missourians that are unserved.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I want to make sure I
understand your question. When you talk about the rule, you're
talking about the FCC rule, or are you talking about the rule
that we have for the administration of our broadband program?
Senator Blunt. I'm talking about the new RUS rule.
Secretary Vilsack. Okay. What we are attempting to do is to
respond to the concerns that folks have expressed about the
fact that we are not directing our resources in the appropriate
way and in the right way. I think what you'll see from us is a
focus on those unserved.
Senator Blunt. Unserved is what I want to say.
Secretary Vilsack. Unserved areas. Having said that, there
are times when because of the remoteness of it or the
population of a particular area, it may be difficult to have
the highest level of broadband capacity, because you may not be
able to sustain it with a customer base. So, it is, I think,
important for us to continue to look for ways in which we can
improve access and connection to telecommunications, without
necessarily creating a circumstance where we're setting
somebody up for failure.
I think the FCC rule does have some play here, because I
think the FCC is under the belief that if they empower some of
the larger operators to become more interested in these
unserved areas, that they'll do a better job than they've done
in the past of trying to respond to the needs of those unserved
areas.
Let me also say that I think that there are new technology
opportunities that we haven't had a chance to discuss today. I
should have brought my prop with me today. At USDA, we are
engaged in experimenting in the State of Hawaii with a
technology that basically is about as big as this card, and
it's about that thick, and four or five of these items placed
on a tall building or on a hill will provide access for miles
and miles of coverage, without the necessity of tens-of-
thousands of dollars of infrastructure.
We are operating these units to develop a 4G network in
Hawaii, using it for public safety purposes, and to provide
interoperability. So, a month or so ago, I was sitting in my
office in DC, in the Agriculture building in DC, talking to our
chief information officer, who was on the big island in Hawaii,
and we were talking to an ambulance that was driving on another
island, by virtue of these little square boxes. As I understand
it, they are several hundred dollars, not several thousand
dollars, in cost. So, it is conceivable that we are on the cusp
of new technology that will make it easier to get to those
remote areas, and still make it financially feasible for them
to have the technology. It's a combination of our programs, the
FCC trying to help the Verizons and the AT&Ts of the world be
more responsive to these needs, and new technology advancements
that might make it less expensive to do it.
Senator Blunt. That sounds good. It doesn't surprise me at
all that the technology is getting smaller and more available,
and I encourage you to continue to stay focused, as you
obviously are, on that. It does bother me when we use tax
dollars to create a competitor to somebody that has created a
service without tax dollars, particularly, when there are still
people who have no service of any kind.
Secretary Vilsack. I agree, and I think that's the reason
why when we did the Recovery Act we made a real effort to avoid
that criticism and that concern. So you'll see a lot of where
we're working on the unserved areas, and in some cases, very
remote areas.
RESEARCH LAB CLOSURES
Senator Blunt. Right. I appreciate that. On the extramural
grants, when we close research labs, what's the cost of moving
that program somewhere else? And did the cost in fiscal year
2012 meet your expectations for the fiscal year 2012 cost of
the labs we're currently in the process of closing and moving
that work somewhere else?
Secretary Vilsack. We're still in the process of doing
that, Senator, so it may very well be that a more definitive
response can be given to you in a couple of months.
Senator Blunt. Would you do that?
Secretary Vilsack. Sure.
Senator Blunt. Go ahead and do what you can today, but I'll
just ask right now.
Secretary Vilsack. Absolutely.
Senator Blunt. When you get more information on that, I'd
like to see it.
[The information follows:]
The fiscal year 2012 agriculture appropriations conference report
agreed with the ARS proposal to close 12 laboratories. Research
activities at the 12 laboratories have ceased and were not relocated
elsewhere. The one-time costs associated with the relocation or
separation of affected personnel and the disposal of property are
estimated at $39 million in fiscal year 2012.
Secretary Vilsack. I have requested from ARS an outline of
what their plans are. There are certain timelines, certain
restrictions, certain communication requirements that they are
going through, and they are going through with each individual
location. In some cases, it obviously costs a little bit more
upfront, and the savings occurs down the line.
I don't know that I've been apprised at this point that any
of the estimates are totally inaccurate. Sometimes it does
depend on the relationship and the deal that's made with the
university, in terms of rehabilitation, in terms of
environmental cleanup, that type of thing, but I have not been
advised as of today that there is a significant difference
between our estimates and what we actually will incur.
As far as the programming is concerned, let me say that
what ARS has done, at my request, is they have looked at every
single facility in our portfolio, more than 100 of these
locations, and if you can conceptualize in your mind a grid, it
is basically divided into four quadrants. In this quadrant at
the top right-hand are those facilities that are in very good
shape, from a maintenance standpoint, and are also high-
priority research.
The lower right-hand quadrant are high-priority research,
but in facilities that are not in particularly good shape. The
upper left-hand quadrant are low-priority research and
facilities that are in pretty good shape, and then over here,
low-priority research and facilities that are in bad, bad
shape.
So as we look at this quadrant, we're going to be in a
position to know, as resources get tight, where the priority
research is and where the good facilities are, and we have to
make sure that we do the best job we can to match those up, and
that's essentially what we're doing.
If we close a facility, and the research is high priority,
it gets transferred to another facility. If it's research that
is of a lower priority, it may have to be assumed by someone
else. I mean the reality is we're dealing with a different day
here, a different day, and that day is that we will have and
have had less money in many of these areas, and that's the
consequence of having less money. You've got to prioritize. And
when you prioritize, you basically prioritize, and you draw a
line where the money runs out, and everything below that line
has got to go in some way, or shape, or form.
Senator Hoeven knows about this. Maybe he doesn't, because
he's always dealt with surpluses, but those of us who are not
fortunate enough to have been Governor of North Dakota
understand that. And if you want to take something from the
bottom of the pile and take it to the top of the pile, and then
something from the top of the pile has to come down, because
you've only got so many dollars.
Senator Blunt. My understanding is the surpluses got a lot
greater after Senator Hoeven became Governor, so maybe they
didn't always have them, but they did have them when he left.
On that regard, as long as I don't have to explain what was
in every quadrant, I'm okay, but I think I've kind of followed
the quadrants, as you explained them.
Do you have any idea how ARS, rather, arrived at the
decision as to where to make the cuts? It did seem they fell
very heavily on the research outside of ARS, the extramural,
the campus-based research, as opposed to research that was more
inside the department.
Secretary Vilsack. I think I would have to provide a more
detailed explanation, but I don't want to misstate something,
and I'll be happy to provide that to you, but I will tell you
that given where we see this headed, with various discussions
and decisions you-all have to make about reducing budgets
significantly, we want to be prepared to be able to do this in
a thoughtful and strategic way. As a result of this approach
that I've just outlined, we're now in a position to do that.
And I think, if there are criticisms, I'd be happy to visit
with you about----
Senator Blunt. Yes. If you can get a little more of that
information to our staff, that would be great. I would like to
look at that, because it does seem to me that the campuses,
particularly, have a lot of resources included, and student
labor, and other opportunities that aren't available in other
places. And I think that campus-based research has always been
pretty cost-effective, but these closures appear to be heavily
focused on that kind of research versus research that's fully
funded by the Federal Government.
Secretary Vilsack. It may be the age of the facilities. It
really may be the priority of the research itself. It could be
the fact that it duplicates research that's being done in other
locations more effectively and more efficiently. I mean it
could be a combination of all those factors, Senator.
[The information follows:]
The temporary budget reductions to ongoing ARS programs in fiscal
year 2012 are necessary to finance the one-time costs associated with
the closure of 12 ARS laboratories. ARS sought to balance the impact on
intramural and extramural programs through an across-the-board
reduction of intramural research, a hiring freeze, and extramural
funding reduction. Together, these actions will finance the one-time
costs to ARS for facility closures without terminating other ARS
research projects and continuing research with ARS extramural partners.
Senator Blunt. I want to talk more about that, and we can.
Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Senator Pryor.
FARM SERVICE AGENCY OFFICE CONSOLIDATION
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to
follow-up on something Senator Blunt said a few moments ago
about broadband, and Senator Moran and Senator Brown mentioned
it as well.
In terms of closing some of these offices, these FSA
offices in Arkansas, if you look on a map, where we have the
least amount of broadband, that's where you tend to be closing
these offices. It's in the most rural and sometimes most
challenging parts of the State. And I know a lot of people do
business online today, but these farmers who are out there in
these parts of the State, they're not going to be able to go
online.
Let me ask about another FSA office in Arkansas, and I'm
sure this is true in other places. In Lafayette County, it's
spelled Lafayette, but we pronounce it La-fay-ette in our
State, there's Lewisville, Arkansas. It is 22.86 Euclidean
miles away from the closest FSA office, which is in Hope. And
what I would like to do, if possible, is get an understanding
from you, because your people say it is only 14.9 Euclidean
miles away.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, if we've made a mistake, we
obviously have to acknowledge that, and we'd be happy to work
with you and your staff to make sure that either we're right or
you're right, and if we're wrong, we'll need to correct that.
Senator Pryor. Here's a map of it right here. Is it
possible that I could send one of my staff members over either
today or tomorrow to sit down with your people and look at your
software? This software that we have right here, we couldn't
get from you. We requested several times to give us a copy of
what you have, and to show us how you're doing it. You wouldn't
do it. We were going on Google. We were going on MapQuest,
whatever else. Finally, we figured out that we actually have
the software that you use at the Geographic Information office
in Little Rock, so we understand we're using the exact same
software you are. Could we send a staff person over there to
sit down with your people and confirm that----
Secretary Vilsack. Sure.
Senator Pryor. We're right on our numbers? Thank you.
In Faulkner County, which is Conway, we have a situation
where there's 136,000 total reported planted acres in Conway.
You have what we call a one-stop shop. I think you guys may
call it a service center, where you have lots of different
government offices there, where everybody can come in, and it's
something that I know in recent years USDA and others have
bragged about, because it makes it very convenient for the
citizens of the State. This is another example where if we were
using the road miles versus the Euclidean miles, this one
wouldn't be closed. Do you take into consideration the
convenience here that, in effect, what you're doing is you're
breaking out of this one-stop shop for people? Did you-all take
that into consideration when you looked at it?
Secretary Vilsack. We were aware of the fact that some of
these facilities were collocated, Senator, but to get back to
the comment that I made earlier, the options are not good. None
of the options are good. And eventually, the options were
creating greater inconvenience for a lot more people and a lot
more offices. I mean, if you furlough people or you lay people
off, that's going to create more concerns in a lot more
offices. So, that's what we're faced with.
BLUEPRINT FOR STRONGER SERVICE
These are not easy decisions, trust me. We did not take
these lightly. Just in the same way that we're not taking
lightly internally what we're trying to do within USDA to
figure out how we might be able to provide more efficient
service, save money, and not have to close offices in the
future. This administrative services process, I'm not sure how
familiar you and your staff are with it, but we'd be happy to
brief you on it. I think you will find that we are looking very
carefully at our own internal activities, taking a look at
whether or not we could be better off with regional centers for
some of the work that we do, figuring out whether or not there
are centers of excellence or shared service centers that might
allow us to do a better job of human resources, or civil
rights, or IT, the things that are common to every mission
area.
We are looking at every aspect of this, because we
recognize you-all have tough decisions to make, you're going to
make those tough decisions, and we're going to have less money.
FARM SERVICE AGENCY OFFICE CONSOLIDATION
Senator Pryor. I mentioned that we have 10 FSA offices in
Arkansas that closed, and I promise you this will be the last
one I mention. This is the fourth out of the 10. And we could
go through all 10, but we won't today.
In Clarksville, Arkansas, there's one, and it's within the
20 miles of Paris, Arkansas. But, you also have Paris on the
closure list. So, that means that there will not be one for the
folks in Clarksville, in that county, so they're going to have
to go to Ozark, which is farther than 20 miles. Did you take
that in consideration when you were doing this? That, to me,
seems inconsistent with the statute.
Secretary Vilsack. Let me say that we asked the State folks
to verify and to weigh in on the decisions that were specific
to the State of Arkansas.
Senator Pryor. Right. But there again, this is another map
of it. That seems inconsistent with the statute, because what
they're left with is, they're left with traveling farther than
the 20 miles that's in the statute to get to an FSA office. I
mean this is more of an interpretative issue, I think, with
USDA rather than your local people in Arkansas issue.
Secretary Vilsack. It isn't, though, sir, because of the
way in which these decisions were developed. They were
developed primarily from instructions in DC, implemented, if
you will, at the State level, so the State folks were the ones
who gave us the recommendations for which offices needed to be
closed. So, if we've made mistakes, we obviously have to own up
to those mistakes.
Senator Pryor. Right.
Secretary Vilsack. There's no question about that.
Senator Pryor. But, wouldn't you say that this might be a
mistake, too?
Secretary Vilsack. I don't know, because--I mean, I don't
know this particular situation. The first example that you gave
me was, I think, a little clearer in my mind, and it may be
that I need to--I can't see that map, frankly, Senator.
Senator Pryor. Okay. We certainly can----
Secretary Vilsack. My eyes aren't that good. I wish they
were.
Senator Pryor. In fact, maybe this afternoon or tomorrow,
when I send my staff person over to meet with your people, they
can talk about this one, too, because basically the bottom line
is, these folks in Clarksville, the net effect is they will
have to drive farther. They will have to drive much farther
than 20 miles to get to an FSA office.
Actually, my last question on this line, Mr. Chairman, is,
I know that you slated 131 of these for closure, and you had
several public meetings. Did any of these public meetings
change your mind at all on these 131?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, these are tough decisions, and
obviously, people are going to come and they're going to talk
very passionately about the need for their individual office.
And you could basically find a reason to keep every single one
of them open, but the reality is we don't have the resources or
the people to do that. That's number one.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Number two, my view of this is that we really need,
perhaps, at USDA to do an even better job than we've done, even
though we've helped more than 50,000 small businesses in the
last 3 years, which is a record number. We really need to
figure out how we can generate a lot of private sector activity
in these communities so that there are options for jobs and for
better incomes. Many of these communities rely, to a great
extent, on publicly supported institutions, and really, we need
to figure out how to do a better job of creating private
enterprise, so that folks have more job opportunities than they
have from trying to keep a post office, or an FSA office, or a
school open. Those are really important, but we haven't done a
good enough job, I guess, in getting factories opened there so
that folks have options.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually have a
few more questions. Are we going to have a third round?
Senator Kohl. Certainly.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Senator Kohl. Mr. Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can defer, if
you just have a question or two to finish up, Senator. Are you
sure? Okay.
AGRICULTURE RESEARCH FUNDING
I actually want to follow-up on a question that Ranking
Member Senator Blunt asked you, and it's about the agriculture
research funding, and it's the extramural program funding. At
North Dakota State University, they're doing a lot of work on
the U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative, and also on the Ug99
barley stem rust research program. Both of those have seen
administrative reductions of about 30 percent. And at the State
level we've put a lot of funding into our agriculture research
greenhouse at North Dakota State University, and so I
understand that you have to find ways to save, but could you go
into a little bit of how you're making that analysis?
And I know that Senator Blunt was asking the same question,
but through the university system, and in States like ours,
we're willing to try to design programs to maximize the
leverage on that research. So, we need to understand how you're
approaching that, so that we can, I guess, do the best job
possible of attracting those dollars into programs like these
two, which are very important to us.
Secretary Vilsack. Roughly 51 percent of the resources go
into crop and animal production protection and productivity.
Roughly 18 percent or so goes into environmental stewardship
and the importance of maintaining water quality and quantity. A
percentage goes into some of the other areas that are outside
of agriculture, specifically in terms of nutrition, food
safety, and things of that nature. So, it's a broad base of
responsibilities we have from a research perspective. I get a
little confused, because when we talk at USDA about external
and internal, we often refer to the external as the competitive
grant program.
Our belief is that we have got to do a better job on two
fronts. First, we have to do a better job of continuing to
leverage the resources that we have more effectively. The
competitive grant process allows us that opportunity to fund
the best projects possible, and to really force and compel
people to really think about what research they're doing and
how they're doing it.
Second, as great as the university systems are, and they
are, and I appreciate Senator Blunt's acknowledgement of our
150th anniversary, and that of the Morrill Act, there is no
overarching process that establishes the national research
goals that would allow us to avoid duplication and replication
of research that's taking place in many land grant universities
across the country. So it's going to be important, I think, for
us to have a conversation in a time of limited resources,
either at the State level or at the Federal level, to do what
we're doing at the global level.
We have the Global Research Alliance, where we're dealing
with 30 different countries on climate issues, and we're saying
let's not replicate or duplicate research, let's make sure the
right hand knows what the left hand is doing. I have to feel
that there's probably some duplication that's taking place
across the country, and maybe we're not investing our research
dollars, whether internally or externally, as efficiently as we
can. So, somewhere there's got to be a process, the competitive
grant process is one way of compelling collaboration, and which
is working. We're making grants now to a university, but that
university may have six or seven different other universities
that they're partnering with. So, I think there's a lot of work
in this area.
The last thing I would say, we don't have the advantage
that other research areas have, the National Science
Foundation, the National Institutes of Health. Our funding has
been flat-lined, for the most part. It hasn't been increased
dramatically. We don't have outside foundations or resources
that would allow us to supplement our resources. So, I think
there's a lot of opportunity in this space for us to do a
better job.
Senator Hoeven. I do want to emphasize those two programs
to you, U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative, also, the Ug99
Barley Stem Rust Research Program, because both saw 30-percent
reduction, administratively applied reduction, which I think is
significant.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, can I ask, when you say
administrative, so I know what you mean, I think I know what I
would mean by that, but what do you mean by that?
Senator Hoeven. Essentially, reduction in this year's
funding for those programs, for those research programs, in
terms of what came out to the university to deduct.
Secretary Vilsack. I think there has been an effort on our
part to make sure that we're not overfunding the administration
of grants, as opposed to the actual research. There's a
difference between how much money goes to the university to
sort of administer the university versus how much money
actually goes to the research project itself.
Senator Hoeven. No. I'm talking about research for those
specific programs, research dollars for those specific
programs.
Secretary Vilsack. But I'm saying, within that grant,
there's a certain allocation for administration and a certain
allocation for the actual research, and I'm not sure if that's
where we're having a communication issue.
Senator Hoeven. No. When I say administratively reduced, I
mean USDA actually coming in on a discretionary basis, reducing
actual research dollars for that research. And this is
something that I'll be working with Senator Blunt and others
on, because I mean this is something that, obviously, we're
very interested in and think that this is critically important.
The other thing is, in terms of the, and I say this a lot
of times, I've got one more question. I can certainly defer for
the third round. I know that's what Mark did. Maybe it's best I
do that.
Senator Kohl. Go ahead.
CROP INSURANCE
Senator Hoeven. Okay. Just in the overall budget, the
administration's budget, they reduced crop insurance by almost
$8 billion. I'm on the Agriculture subcommittee as well, and
that's not the direction we're going. Clearly, we're not going
to have direct payments. And so, what we're trying to do is
find ways to enhance crop insurance. I'm on legislation with
Senator Conrad, Senator Baucus, and others, and there are other
bills as well. But crop insurance is going to be more
important, in terms of a cost-effective safety net.
Just give me your thoughts here, because my sense is you're
sympathetic to the tremendous importance of crop insurance,
particularly in the situation of tight dollars. That's going
the wrong direction. Just your thoughts.
Secretary Vilsack. It depends. It depends on where the
money is coming from. I mean clearly, let me state
unequivocally that crop insurance is the linchpin of the safety
net. But, there are three components to the crop insurance.
There's the amount the insurance company gets. There's the
amount the agent gets. And there's the amount that the farmer
pays. And all of those are basically supplemented, if you will,
by Government assistance.
We've done an analysis of what insurance companies
currently are getting in terms of the return on investment, and
how much it would take for those insurance companies to be able
to maintain the integrity of crop insurance. What we found was
a 12-percent return on the money would be sufficient to
maintain the integrity.
Even in a year that was extraordinary, last year, crop
insurance companies are still going to net about $1.5 billion,
I'm told, of profit. So right now, they're getting 14 percent.
So, the question is: Is there any adjustment in these tight
times between 14 and 12 that could be made that doesn't
compromise the process of the crop insurance program at all?
Number one.
Number two, I think agents, on average, get somewhere
around $1,000 per policy for selling a policy, a slight
adjustment to that, given the fact that 15 years ago when crop
insurance was sold, it was quite difficult to sell the concept
to farmers. Today, it's not at all difficult, because most
farmers want it, and most bankers require it. Can there be a
slight adjustment there?
Then the third component of the President's proposal is
crop insurance is a partnership between the Government and
farmers. Some commodities, we are actually subsidizing the
premium by 60 to 65 percent. Maybe a 50-50 partnership is fair.
So those three areas do not compromise the capacity for us to
have crop insurance, nor does it compromise our capacity to
expand the number of products available to cover more crops as
we've done. So, I don't know that you necessarily equate
reductions in Government subsidy with not supporting the
program. It depends on where the money comes from.
Senator Hoeven. There was $6 billion taken out of crop
insurance, in terms of what goes to the insurers in the past
year. And crop insurance is going to have to carry a lot more
of the load. So, separate and apart from what you're saying, in
terms of the actual program and how we make sure we have a
safety net for farmers, we're going to need to emphasize crop
insurance, which is going to take more funding in that part of
the program, not less.
Secretary Vilsack. Not necessarily, Senator, because with
the money that was taken, insurance companies were generating
17, in some cases as much as 26-percent return on their money
annually.
Senator Hoeven. But, remember, we took $6 billion out of
the program already.
Secretary Vilsack. This brought it down to 14--$2 billion
went back into various programs to help the farmers.
Senator Hoeven. And now you've got crop insurance picking
up some of the help that was formerly provided by other parts
of the program. Crop insurance is going to have to pick that
up. So, there's a lot more to it than just the one piece you're
talking about.
Secretary Vilsack. Unless you amplify crop insurance with
another program, which a lot of folks are talking about, which
the President recognized in his budget of providing additional
resources for ``a disaster program of one kind of another.''
Senator Hoeven. There'll be some of that, but we're still
going to need to have to emphasize crop insurance.
Thank you.
Senator Kohl. Good. Senator Pryor.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE LAB CLOSURES
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask about an
ARS issue, about a 30-percent cut to extramural ARS activities.
As I understand it, in fiscal year 2012, ARS proposed to
close 12 laboratories. However, USDA did not submit a budget
request to the Congress that included all the costs associated
with closing these facilities, including the closure of labs,
relocating employees, et cetera. As a result, ARS was $38
million short for these activities after the appropriation
bills were signed into law. Is that right? Do I have that
right?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, you may very well be right, and
that's basically what we have to do is when that happens we've
got to figure out how to absorb that cost.
Senator Pryor. And that seems to me to be a budget mistake
on USDA's part for not budgeting properly last year.
Secretary Vilsack. I'd like to think that you-all would
have given us that money, but I'm not sure that's the case,
given the fact that you've been cutting ARS the last couple of
years.
Senator Pryor. My understanding was that it wasn't part of
your request, that you thought you had adequate funds to do the
changes.
Secretary Vilsack. We have to absorb that, Senator.
Senator Pryor. And that's my point. You're absorbing it at
our expense. I mean, in effect, we're paying for the mistake.
Aren't there other ways to find that money to absorb that $38
million?
Secretary Vilsack. There are other ways. You could
appropriate money. I mean a supplemental appropriation. We
could transfer money, but in which case you'd then be asking me
why we were transferring resources from another program that
you like to another program that you like. I mean these are
tough issues, Senator. These are tough issues, and when the
Congress is basically telling us, as we have heard repeatedly,
that we're going to have less money, and when we're talking
about a $1.5 trillion cut that's forthcoming, these are hard
decisions. There's no easy answer.
And I will tell you, I hear a lot of folks talk about
waste, fraud, and abuse is the answer. Well, there's always
going to be better ways to do things, but at the end of the
day, with the kind of cuts we're talking about, and that we've
dealt with, we're dealing with real difficult decisions. I
think it's important for people to understand that.
Senator Pryor. I do have some more questions along those
lines, but I don't want to try the subcommittee's patience. So,
let me ask about one more thing.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE GRAZING RESEARCH
It seems like Arkansas got a lot of focus over at the USDA
when they looked at cutting their budget this year. You've
decided to close the Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center
in Booneville. In light of the closure of the Brooksville,
Florida, facility in 2011, and the expected closures of
Watkinsville, Georgia, and Beaver, West Virginia, by June 1,
2012, where will the ARS conduct grazing research for the
Eastern part of the United States?
Secretary Vilsack. There are three areas that will pick up
some of the work that was done in Arkansas. They are Nebraska,
Oklahoma, and Texas.
Senator Pryor. And they'll be looking at the grazing aspect
of it.
Secretary Vilsack. Yes, sir.
Senator Pryor. Because I know that part of what Booneville
was doing is they were doing long-term, like a 20-year study on
watersheds and the impact livestock have on those.
Secretary Vilsack. The fact is that the priority research
is going to continue. It may continue in a facility where the
maintenance costs over time will be less. It may continue at a
facility that is actually doing this work as well, to avoid
duplication.
Senator Pryor. And actually, this Dale Bumpers facility
actually meets one of the criteria you talked about earlier,
because it is hard for young people to get into farming. And
here, they focus on small farms, and startups, and how you can
get into certain type of farming activities and actually make a
go of it.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
I think that on this, and maybe some of these other
facilities that we've talked about today, they focus on long-
term basic research that actually helps farming, helps
agriculture, and helps that be a core strength in the U.S.
economy. So, are you-all just going to be getting out of the
research business? Is that where you're headed?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator.
Senator Pryor. I'm asking.
Secretary Vilsack. We have over 100 facilities that will
still be operating, and we've asked for additional resources in
the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) portion of
the budget, $60 million-plus additional above and beyond what
was appropriated last year. We've been advocating for more
research opportunities. It doesn't necessarily mean that we
have to have more facilities. It means that there is a number
of different ways in which we can embrace additional research.
So, it's unfair to suggest that we're trying to get out of
the research business. But, it is fair to point out that the
Congress has provided less money in several areas of our
budget, and we have to deal with that. I'm not going to whine
about it. I'm not going to complain about it. I'm going to
manage it. But I have to have the capacity to manage it. I have
to have the capacity to make choices. And sometimes those
choices are difficult.
If it doesn't come from one source, it's got to come from
another source. That's the reality of less money, and we are in
that position and circumstance where every single entity, every
single agency of the Government is going to have to go through
this.
BLUEPRINT FOR STRONGER SERVICE
Frankly, it's a difficult process, but it's an important
process, because it really allows you to think carefully and
very strategically about what we ought to be doing, where we
ought to be doing it, and how we ought to be doing it. Which is
why we just didn't focus on office closings, we just didn't do
what a lot of people do when they're faced with less money, is
just to do a blanket across-the-board cut in workforce, which
would have disrupted services in a lot of different areas. We
took a strategic approach. We said, Less travel, less supplies,
less conferences. We said, Are there ways in which we can do
civil rights, IT, budget and finance, human resources,
security, property management, and procurement more effectively
and efficiently? Yes--379 different set of recommendations that
we're now in the process of implementing.
We looked at a Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay and
Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VSIP/VERA) process, so
that we didn't have to be unfair to the people who had worked
and dedicated their life to USDA, by giving them an opportunity
for early retirement or for a buyout, so that we could keep a
lot of our young people that we have been hiring over the
course of the last several years, to maintain a good diversity
in our workforce.
We looked at office closings. We looked at lab closings. We
looked at the entire process, which is what you have to do. If
you could tell me we're not going to be faced with tough budget
times in the next couple of years, that's great, but everything
I read suggests that we're going to have to hunker down here.
That's why I managed the change, rather than be managed by the
change.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
Senator Pryor. That's why I asked about research, because
under the Budget Control Act, it's going to be tougher in the
next few years. And I'm trying to get a sense from you. You say
you want to spend more in research, but you're going to have to
be cutting other places. I'm just trying to get a sense of
where you think the USDA is going over the next several years.
Secretary Vilsack. The research that we see is the best way
to use scarce resources, is to do it in a competitive way, that
compels land grant universities and other universities that are
engaged in research to collaborate, to avoid duplication, to
avoid replication of research. That's why we think that the
AFRI process and National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA) is a good way to approach this and get the biggest bang
and the largest stretch for our dollar.
There have been those that have suggested that we need to
complement that with the establishment of a foundation. I'm all
for that. I think that's great. We don't have that in
agriculture. We have it in a lot of other areas, and those
areas have seen significant improvements in research. So, there
are multiple ways in which we are going to be supportive of
agricultural research. Make no mistake about that. Make no
mistake about that. Because there is a direct correlation
between agricultural productivity and research. The charts are
very clear.
Senator Pryor. I agree. I agree. And that's why I was
asking that. I hope one thing you'll consider is taking these
old facilities and research you're not using, and not going to
fund any more, and possibly see if you can turn those over to
some land grant universities so they can use those for
research.
Secretary Vilsack. We are required to do that, in the sense
that we're required to reach out to our land grant university
partners and say, ``Are you interested in having this facility?
And if you are, what would you be willing to do with it, and
can we enter into an agreement where you would commit it to
agricultural activities for a period of time?'' We're required
to do that, and we will follow through with that.
Senator Pryor. And would there be any funding stream that
would go along with that for research?
Secretary Vilsack. That would, I suppose, depend on whether
or not they'd like to participate in the competitive grant
process under NIFA and the AFRI program.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Senator Pryor. Mr. Chairman, the last thing I will say, and
I'm sorry for trying the subcommittee's patience here. I know
you've made a lot of progress in the last few years on civil
rights, but there is still one major problem, I think, that
exists, and that is USDA has no deadline for civil rights
intake process or responding to civil rights complaints. And we
have several folks in our State, and I'm sure others do as
well, that are hanging out there in limbo for sometimes years
at a time, waiting for responses from USDA.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I don't think that's correct. I
just don't think that's correct. In fact, I get a quarterly
report on both internal and external complaints against USDA by
mission area. We have a response time within 180 days. I will
get to your staff the list that I get, and it will show you
that there is no claim that's currently before the USDA that is
over the time period that the statute of limitations has
expired since we started this process and started keeping
track.
[The information follows:]
The attached table is the color coded list that USDA uses to track
the progress of pending complaints that raise claims under the Equal
Credit Protect Act (ECOA). The table tracks the number of days left
before the statute of limitations runs on ECOA claims. USDA's civil
rights managers at every level meet once a week to review progress on
these claims and take steps to expedite or remove road blocks as
necessary.
Most ECOA claims in inventory fall under a 2-year statute of
limitations. This means that 2 years from the date of the incident
alleged to be discriminatory, complainants lose the right to pursue the
claim in court. More recent claims may benefit from the 5-year statute
of limitations extended by the Dodd-Frank Act. This administration
inherited a backlog of over 1,000 uncatalogued complaints that did not
identify ECOA claims or track the date of the applicable statute of
limitations.
USDA civil rights staff inventoried the backlog and identified
complaints raising ECOA claims. Based on that information, USDA created
the attached table to track processing time against the deadline
created by the statute of limitations for each complaint. The table
identifies complainants' names (redacted); the number of days remaining
until a 2-year statute of limitations would expire; the date on which
the 2-year statute of limitations would expire; the status of each
complaint; OASCR staff assigned to process the complaint; and other
relevant information.
An ECOA committee representing staff at every stage of complaint
processing continues to meet regularly to maintain and update the
table. New complaints raising ECOA claims are immediately added to the
list. USDA civil rights managers at every level meet once a week to
review progress on these pending claims and take steps to expedite or
remove road blocks as necessary.
USDA--OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS--OFFICE OF ADJUDICATION--EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT CASES STATUTE OF LIMITATION NOT EXPIRED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Days
2 years elapsed Actual Initial Date ECOA
No. Days remaining until 2 years since USDA rcvd Agency Case # Status Investigator Pending review Program name Corresp (from Current incident incident letter
from incident date incident date adjudicator OASCR date incident date date date mailed
date date)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---1-32------------------------------4/30/2012.--10/1/2010.--FSA..............--11-4279....--Adjudication..--MB, WS........--OASCR.........--Farm Operating-----9/14/2010.--698.......--3/29/2012.--5/1/2010..--5/1/2010..--10/13/2010--
Loan (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 55 5/23/2012. 5/25/2010. FSA.............. 10-3929.... Adjudication.. SF, WH, EP.... OASCR......... FSA-Guaranteed 5/24/2010. 675....... 3/29/2012. 5/24/2010. 5/24/2010. ..........
Loan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 58 5/26/2012. 7/28/2010. FSA.............. 10-4133.... Adjudication.. RC, HR........ OASCR......... Farm Service 7/22/2010. 672....... 3/29/2012. 5/27/2010. 5/27/2010. 9/23/2010
Agency (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 100 7/7/2012.. 7/27/2010. RD............... 11-4412.... Adjudication.. CB, KC........ Adjudication.. SFH--Rural 7/29/2010. 630....... 3/29/2012. 7/8/2010.. 12/21/2010 12/29/2010
Housing Direct
Loans (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 155 8/31/2012. 7/27/2010. RD............... 11-4338.... Investigation. SF............ Investigation. SFH--Rural 9/29/2010. 575....... 3/29/2012. 9/1/2010.. 9/1/2010.. 12/2/2010
Housing Direct
Loans (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 168 9/13/2012. 10/4/2010. FSA.............. 11-4283.... Adjudication.. HR, RC........ OASCR......... Direct Operating 9/27/2010. 562....... 3/29/2012. 9/14/2010. 9/14/2010. 11/5/2010
Loan/Guaranteed
Operating Loan
(FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 188 10/3/2012. 1/31/2011. RD............... 11-4704.... Adjudication.. CB, JE........ Adjudication.. SFH--Rural 3/25/2011. 542....... 3/29/2012. 10/4/2010. 10/1/2010. 3/25/2011
Housing Direct
Loans (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 213 10/28/2012 7/27/2010. RD............... 11-4515.... Adjudication.. KCB, LR....... OASCR......... SFH--Rural 10/29/2010 517....... 3/29/2012. 10/29/2010 10/29/2010 12/15/2010
Housing Direct
Loans (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 228 11/12/2012 11/23/2010 FSA.............. 11-4443.... Adjudication.. MB, LR........ Adjudication.. Farm Operating 11/13/2010 502....... 3/29/2012. 11/13/2010 11/13/2010 1/12/2011
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 265 12/19/2012 1/10/2011. FSA.............. 11-4609.... Investigation. MB............ Investigation. Farm Operating 12/22/2010 465....... 3/29/2012. 12/20/2010 12/20/2010 2/7/2011
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 289 1/12/2013. 1/7/2011.. RD............... 11-4606.... Investigation. MP............ Investigation. SFH--Housing 2/24/2011. 441....... 3/29/2012. 1/13/2011. 1/13/2011. 2/24/2011
Repair &
Rehabilitation
Grant/Loan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 303 1/26/2013. 2/1/2011.. FSA.............. 11-4687.... Investigation. WH............ Investigation. Farm Operating 3/14/2011. 427....... 3/29/2012. 1/27/2011. 1/27/2011. 3/14/2011
Loan (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 330 2/22/2013. 11/4/2011. FSA.............. 12-5519.... Investigation. TA............ Investigation. Farm Operating 10/17/2011 400....... 3/29/2012. 2/23/2011. 2/23/2011. 11/29/2011
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 345 3/9/2013.. 9/22/2011. FSA.............. 11-5359.... Investigation. TA............ Investigation. Farm Ownership 10/19/2011 385....... 3/29/2012. 3/10/2011. 3/10/2011. 10/19/2011
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 352 3/16/2013. 4/11/2011. FSA.............. 11-4845.... Investigation. SA............ Investigation. Farm Operating 4/5/2011.. 378....... 3/29/2012. 3/17/2011. 3/17/2011. 6/17/2011
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 377 4/10/2013. 10/1/2010. FSA.............. 11-4280.... Adjudication.. AG............ Adjudication.. Farm Operating 9/29/2010. 353....... 3/29/2012. 4/11/2011. 4/11/2011. 10/15/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 377 4/10/2013. 4/21/2011. FSA.............. 11-4887.... Adjudication.. JE, MP........ Adjudication.. Farm Ownership 4/14/2011. 353....... 3/29/2012. 4/11/2011. 4/11/2011. 5/13/2011
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 395 4/28/2013. 3/2/2011.. RD............... 11-4828.... Investigation. MB............ Investigation. SFH--Rural 4/29/2011. 335....... 3/29/2012. 4/29/2011. .......... 7/18/2011
Housing Loan
(RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 395 4/28/2013. 3/25/2011. FSA.............. 11-5093.... Investigation. EP............ Investigation. Farm Operating 4/29/2011. 335....... 3/29/2012. 4/29/2011. 4/29/2011. 8/15/2011
Loan (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 412 5/15/2013. 8/19/2011. RD............... 11-5227.... Investigation. TA............ Investigation. SHF-Guaranteed 8/4/2011.. 318....... 3/29/2012. 5/16/2011. 5/16/2011. 10/7/2011
Loan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 414 5/17/2013. 9/20/2011. FSA.............. 11-5348.... Investigation. AG............ Investigation. Farm Operating 9/30/2011. 316....... 3/29/2012. 5/18/2011. 5/18/2011. 9/30/2011
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 421 5/24/2013. 9/7/2011.. RD............... 11-5316.... Investigation. MP............ Investigation. SFH--Rural 8/25/2011. 309....... 3/29/2012. 5/25/2011. 5/25/2011. 10/27/2011
Housing Direct
Loan (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 433 6/5/2013.. 6/20/2011. FSA.............. 11-5046.... Investigation. CB............ Investigation. Farm Operating 6/12/2011. 297....... 3/29/2012. 6/6/2011.. 6/6/2011.. 9/26/2011
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 442 6/14/2013. 5/4/2011.. RD............... 11-4937.... Investigation. MP............ Investigation. SFH--Rural 4/25/2011. 288....... 3/29/2012. 6/15/2011. 6/15/2011. 6/23/2011
Housing Direct
Loans (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 450 6/22/2013. 7/5/2011.. RD............... 11-5098.... Adjudication.. SA, LR........ Adjudication.. SFH--Rural 6/28/2011. 280....... 3/29/2012. 6/23/2011. 6/23/2011. 7/28/2011
Housing
Guaranteed Loan
(RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 456 6/28/2013. 7/19/2011. FSA.............. 11-5132.... Investigation. KCB........... Investigation. Farm Operating 7/14/2011. 274....... 3/29/2012. 6/29/2011. 6/29/2011. 8/8/2011
Loan (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 475 7/17/2013. 8/15/2011. FSA.............. 11-5215.... Investigation. LJ............ Investigation. Farm Operating 7/18/2011. 255....... 3/29/2012. 7/18/2011. 7/18/2011. 11/9/2011
Loan (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28 500 8/11/2013. 11/8/2011. FSA.............. 12-5524.... Investigation. LJ............ Investigation. Farm Operating 10/19/2011 230....... 3/29/2012. 8/12/2011. 8/12/2011. 11/18/2011
Loan (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 500 8/11/2013. 9/30/2011. FSA.............. 11-5392.... Investigation. EP............ Investigation. Farm Operating 9/15/2011. 230....... 3/29/2012. 8/12/2011. 8/12/2011. 10/21/2011
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 542 9/22/2013. 11/8/2011. RD............... 12-5527.... Investigation. NA............ Investigation. SFH--Rural 10/29/2011 188....... 3/29/2012. 9/23/2011. 1/27/2010. 11/22/2011
Housing Direct
Loans (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31 553 8/29/2013. 10/24/2011 RD............... 12-5497.... Fact-Finding.. FF............ Fact-Finding.. SFH--Rural 10/24/2012 177....... 2/23/2012. 8/30/2011. 8/30/2011. 2/13/2011
Housing Loan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 580 10/30/2013 1/9/2011.. FSA.............. 12-5699.... Fact-Finding.. FF............ Fact-Finding.. Commodity Def. 12/28/2011 150....... 3/29/2012. 10/31/2011 10/31/2011 3/16/2012
Loan (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33 609 11/28/2013 1/18/2012. RD............... 12-5715.... Fact-Finding.. FF............ Fact-Finding.. SFH--Other 12/20/2011 121....... 3/29/2012. 11/29/2011 11/29/2011 2/28/2012
(Moratorium).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34 616 12/5/2013. 1/20/2012. FSA.............. 12-5740.... Fact-Finding.. FF............ Fact-Finding.. Farm Operating 1/10/2012. 114....... 3/29/2012. 12/6/2011. 12/6/2011. 2/28/2012
Loan (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35 624 12/13/2013 11/23/2011 RD............... 12-5576.... Fact-Finding.. FF............ Fact-Finding.. SFH--Rural 1/23/2012. 106....... 3/29/2012. 12/14/2011 12/14/2011 1/23/2012
Housing Direct
Loans (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36 687 2/14/2014. 3/2/2012.. FSA.............. 12-5864.... Fact-Finding.. FF............ Fact-Finding.. Farm Operating 2/21/2012. 43........ 3/29/2012. 2/15/2012. 2/15/2012. 3/16/2012
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37 950 11/4/2014. 2/26/2010. RD............... 10-3706.... Adjudication.. FF............ Adjudication.. SFH--Other (RD).. 11/19/209. 875....... 3/29/2012. 11/5/2009. 11/5/2009. ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38 1047 2/9/2015.. 8/16/2010. RD............... 10-4155.... Adjudication.. FF............ OASCR......... Rural Development 4/25/2010. 778....... 3/29/2012. 2/10/2010. 2/10/2010. 10/1/2010
(RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39 -103 12/17/2011 5/13/2010. FSA.............. 10-3906.... Adjudication.. OASCR......... OASCR......... Farm Operating 5/27/2010. 833....... 3/29/2012. 12/17/2009 7/15/2010. 5/27/2010
Loan (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 .......... 6/22/2010. FSA.............. 10-4017.... Adjudication.. OASCR......... OASCR......... Farm Operating 6/16/2010. .......... 3/29/2012. TBD....... TBD....... 8/24/2011
Loan (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41 -412 2/11/2011. 3/4/2009.. FSA.............. 09-2297.... Adjudication.. OASCR......... OASCR NF Farm Operating 2/11/2009. 1142...... 3/29/2012. 2/11/2009. 2/11/2009. 4/16/2010
Proposed OGC Loans (FSA).
Not Signed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42 0 1/22/2012. 2/18/2010. FSA.............. 10-3681.... Settlement .............. .............. Farm Operating 2/8/2010.. 797....... 3/29/2012. 1/22/2010. 1/22/2010. 9/1/2010
completed Loans (FSA).
with
complainant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43 42 5/10/2012. 5/18/2010. FSA.............. 10-3933.... F 2/29/2012... .............. .............. Farm Operating 5/18/2010. 688....... 3/29/2012. 5/11/2010. 5/11/2010. 6/22/2010
Loan (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44 218 11/2/2012. 2/15/2011. FSA.............. 11-4729.... F 2/29/2012... .............. .............. FSA--Farm 4/8/2011.. 512....... 3/29/2012. 11/3/2010. 4/8/2011.. ..........
Operating Loan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45 93 6/30/2012. 9/22/2010. FSA.............. 10-4242.... F 2/29/2012... .............. .............. Farm Operating 8/27/2010. 637....... 3/29/2012. 7/1/2010.. 7/11/2010. 10/20/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46 34 5/2/2012.. 6/2/2010.. FSA.............. 10-3988.... NF 3/8/2012... .............. .............. Operating Loan 5/25/2010. 696....... 3/29/2012. 5/3/2010.. 5/25/2010. 7/7/2010
(FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
47 0 2/22/2012. 3/2/2010.. RD............... 10-3719.... Closure .............. .............. SFH--Rural 2/22/2010. 766....... 3/29/2012. 2/22/2010. 2/22/2010. 9/9/2010
Withdrawn 1/ Housing Direct
30/2012. Loans (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48 0 8/31/2011. 1/20/2010. FSA.............. 10-3593.... NF 3/8/2012... .............. .............. Farm Operating 12/30/2009 941....... 3/29/2012. 8/31/2009. 5/1/2009.. ..........
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
49 0 5/13/2012. 6/8/2010.. RD............... 10-3966.... NF 1/12/2012.. .............. .............. RD (loan)........ 5/24/2010. 685....... 3/29/2012. 5/14/2010. 5/14/2010. 6/25/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 0 8/18/2012. 7/27/2010. FSA.............. 11-4445.... Closure 8/19/ .............. .............. Farm Operating 8/22/2010. 588....... 3/29/2012. 8/19/2010. 8/19/2010. 12/15/2010
2011. Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
51 0 7/11/2013. 7/20/2001. RD............... 11-5143.... Closure 11/03/ .............. .............. SFH--Rural 7/12/2011. 261....... 3/29/2012. 7/12/2011. 7/12/2011. 8/12/2011
2011. Housing
Guaranteed Loan
(RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
52 0 2/8/2012.. 3/1/2010.. FSA.............. 10-3707.... NF 12/2/2011.. .............. .............. Direct Operating 2/24/2010. 780....... 3/29/2012. 2/8/2010.. 2/8/2010.. 7/19/2010
Loan/Guaranteed
Operating Loan
(FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53 0 11/9/2011. 4/29/2010. FSA.............. 10-3873.... NF 11/10/2011. .............. .............. Outreach & 4/25/2010. 871....... 3/29/2012. 11/9/2009. 4/7/2010.. 4/30/2010
Assistance for
Socially
Disadvantaged
Farmers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
54 0 11/9/2011. 4/29/2010. FSA.............. 10-3872.... NF 11/09/2011. .............. .............. Outreach & 4/25/2010. 871....... 3/29/2012. 11/9/2009. 4/7/2010.. 11/5/2010
Assistance for
Socially
Disadvantaged
Farmers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55 0 12/2/2011. 3/18/2010. RD............... 10-3766.... NF 10/24/2011. .............. .............. SFH--Rural 3/8/2010.. 848....... 3/29/2012. 12/2/2009. 12/2/2009. 2/11/2011
Housing Direct
Loans (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56 0 10/22/2011 9/15/2010. FSA.............. 10-4218.... NF 10/21/2011. .............. .............. Operating Loan 9/7/2010.. 889....... 3/29/2012. 10/22/2009 5/3/2010.. ..........
(FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
57 0 11/1/2011. 5/27/2010. FSA.............. 10-3942.... NF 10/24/2011. .............. .............. Farm Operating 5/21/2010. 879....... 3/29/2012. 11/1/2009. 11/1/2009. Pending
Loan (FSA). discussio
n
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58 0 2/29/2012. 7/28/2010. RD............... 10-4099.... Closed 10/19/ .............. .............. Rural Development 7/20/2010. 759....... 3/29/2012. 3/1/2010.. 3/1/2010.. 6/1/2010
2011. (502/504 loan
grant).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
59 0 3/9/2012.. 10/28/2010 RD............... 11-4469.... Closed 10/21/ .............. .............. SFH--Rural 2/11/2011. 750....... 3/29/2012. 3/10/2010. 3/10/2010. 6/1/2010
2011. Housing Direct
Loans (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 0 5/31/2012. 7/20/2010. FSA.............. 10-4102.... Closed 8/15/ .............. .............. Emergency Loan 7/12/2010. 667....... 3/29/2012. 6/1/2010.. .......... 9/27/2010
2011. (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
61 0 11/14/2012 5/4/2011.. RD............... 11-4941.... Closed 10/5/ .............. .............. SFH--Rural 4/12/2011. 500....... 3/29/2012. 11/15/2010 .......... 7/8/2011
2011. Housing Loan
(RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
62 0 10/9/2011. 10/27/2009 FSA.............. 10-3304.... NF 9/30/2011.. .............. .............. Farm Operating 10/26/2009 902....... 3/29/2012. 10/9/2009. 10/9/2009. 5/5/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63 0 11/18/2011 1/26/2010. FSA.............. 10-3633.... NF 9/29/2011.. .............. .............. Farm Ownership 1/27/2010. 862....... 3/29/2012. 11/18/2009 11/18/2009 5/18/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
64 0 2/26/2012. 2/26/2010. FSA.............. 10-3689.... Closed--No .............. .............. Farm Ownership 2/26/2010. 762....... 3/29/2012. 2/26/2010. 2/26/2010. 2/11/2011
Jurisdiction. Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
65 0 6/30/2012. 8/25/2010. FSA.............. 10-4181.... Adjudication .............. .............. Diaster Loan 8/25/2010. 637....... 3/29/2012. 7/1/2010.. 7/1/2010.. 10/4/2010
Closed--Filed (FSA).
in Federal
Court.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
66 0 9/1/2011.. 7/20/2010. FSA.............. 10-4083.... NF 8/31/2011.. .............. .............. Farm Operating 7/12/2010. 940....... 3/29/2012. 9/1/2009.. 9/1/2009.. ..........
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
67 0 10/14/2011 10/21/2009 FSA.............. 10-3312.... NF 8/26/2011.. .............. .............. Farm Operating 10/14/2009 897....... 3/29/2012. 10/14/2009 10/14/2009 5/20/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
68 -616 7/22/2010. 12/15/2008 FSA.............. 09-2094.... Investigation .............. .............. Farm Operating 12/9/2008. 1346...... 3/29/2012. 7/22/2008. 7/22/2008. 4/15/2010
(Held in Loans (FSA).
Abeyance).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
69 -626 7/12/2010. 7/31/2008. FSA.............. 8-1642..... Investigation .............. .............. Farm Operating 7/31/2008. 1356...... 3/29/2012. 7/12/2008. 7/12/2008. 4/30/2010
(Held in Loans (FSA).
Abeyance).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70 0 7/4/2012.. 7/27/2010. RHS.............. 10-4092.... Closure 8/23/ .............. .............. Rural Development 7/20/2010. 633....... 3/29/2012. 7/5/2010.. 7/5/2010.. 8/27/2010
2011. (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
71 0 12/2/2011. 1/12/2010. FSA.............. 10-3558.... Adjudication .............. .............. Farm Operating 1/4/2010.. 848....... 3/29/2012. 12/2/2009. 12/2/2009. ..........
Not ECOA. Loan (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
72 0 12/11/2011 12/30/2009 FSA.............. 10-3546.... Removed Not .............. .............. Farm Ownership 12/11/2009 839....... 3/29/2012. 12/11/2009 12/11/2009 9/3/2010
ECOA. Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
73 0 9/1/2011.. 4/7/2010.. FSA.............. 10-3827.... Closure 8/17/ .............. .............. Farm Operating 3/21/2010. 940....... 3/29/2012. 9/1/2009.. 9/1/2009.. 5/27/2010
2011. Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74 0 1/1/2012.. 10/6/2010. RD............... 11-4468.... Closure 8/17/ .............. .............. SFH--Rural 2/11/2011. 818....... 3/29/2012. 1/1/2010.. 1/1/2010.. 5/14/2010
2011. Housing Direct
Loans (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
75 0 1/14/2012. 4/5/2010.. RD............... 10-3813.... Removed Not .............. .............. Rural Development 3/24/2010. 805....... 3/29/2012. 1/14/2010. 1/14/2010. 5/13/2010
ECOA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
76 0 7/24/2011. 9/4/2009.. FSA.............. 09-3073.... F 7/25/2011... .............. .............. Farm Operating 8/27/2009. 979....... 3/29/2012. 7/24/2009. 10/1/2009. ..........
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
77 0 7/28/2011. 8/14/2009. RD............... 09-2948.... NF 7/28/2011.. .............. .............. SFH--Rural 8/7/2009.. 975....... 3/29/2012. 7/28/2009. 7/28/2009. 4/16/2010
Housing
Guaranteed Loan
(RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
78 0 7/29/2011. 1/8/2008.. RD............... 8-0907..... NF 7/28/2011.. .............. .............. SFH--Rural 1/6/2010.. 974....... 3/29/2012. 7/29/2009. 7/29/2009. ..........
Housing Direct
Loans (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
79 0 10/26/2011 10/26/2009 FSA.............. 10-3260.... Removed Not .............. .............. Farm Operating 10/26/2009 885....... 3/29/2012. 10/26/2009 10/26/2009 5/20/2010
ECOA. Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80 -253 7/20/2011. 9/11/2009. FSA.............. 09-3087.... Closure/File .............. .............. Farm Operating 7/20/2009. 983....... 3/29/2012. 7/20/2009. 7/20/2009. ..........
in Federal Loans (FSA).
Court (KCB).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
81 0 7/21/2011. 11/7/2009. FSA.............. 10-3332.... Closure 7/20/ .............. .............. Farm Operating 10/7/2009. 982....... 3/29/2012. 7/21/2009. 7/1/2009.. 5/20/2010
2011. Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
82 0 10/31/2011 10/9/2009. FSA.............. 10-3343.... Closure 6/27/ .............. .............. Farm Operating 9/29/2009. 880....... 3/29/2012. 10/31/2009 10/31/2009 7/1/2010
2011. Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
83 0 2/26/2012. 4/2/2010.. RD............... 10-3810.... Closure 6/24/ .............. .............. Denial of Loan 2/26/2010. 762....... 3/29/2012. 2/26/2010. 2/26/2010. 9/3/2010
2011. (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
84 0 2/23/2012. 7/27/2010. FSA.............. 10-4090.... Closure 6/23/ .............. .............. Farm Operating 4/27/2010. 765....... 3/29/2012. 2/23/2010. 2/23/2010. 4/30/2010
2011. Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
85 0 7/13/2011. 7/30/2009. FSA.............. 09-2919.... NF 7/12/2011.. .............. .............. Farm Operating 7/24/2009. 990....... 3/29/2012. 7/13/2009. 7/13/2009. 5/5/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
86 0 7/8/2011.. 3/5/2009.. FSA.............. 09-2294.... NF 7/5/2011... .............. .............. Farm Operating 2/25/2009. 995....... 3/29/2012. 7/8/2009.. 5/18/2009. 4/16/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
87 0 7/14/2011. 4/6/2009.. FSA.............. 09-2482.... Removed....... .............. .............. Farm Ownership 4/3/2009.. 989....... 3/29/2012. 7/14/2009. 7/14/2009. 4/30/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
88 0 7/6/2011.. 7/29/2009. FSA.............. 09-2904.... NF 7/1/2011... .............. .............. Farm Operating 7/9/2009.. 997....... 3/29/2012. 7/6/2009.. 7/6/2009.. 4/16/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
89 0 6/26/2011. 7/30/2009. RD............... 09-2899.... NF 6/27/2011.. .............. .............. Rural Business 7/28/2000. 1007...... 3/29/2012. 6/26/2009. 6/26/2009. 7/19/2010
Enterprise Grant
(loan) (RBS).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90 0 6/17/2011. 5/28/2009. FSA.............. 09-2668.... Closure 5/26/ .............. .............. Farm Operating 5/18/2009. 1016...... 3/29/2012. 6/17/2009. 4/24/2009. 5/20/2010
2011. Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
91 0 7/17/2011. 8/20/2009. RD............... 09-3014.... Closure 6/23/ .............. .............. SFH--Housing 8/11/2009. 986....... 3/29/2012. 7/17/2009. 7/17/2009. 5/6/2010
2011. Repair &
Rehabilitation
Grant/Loan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
92 0 8/1/2011.. 10/8/2009. FSA.............. 10-3243.... Closure 6/27/ .............. .............. Beginning Farmer 9/28/2009. 971....... 3/29/2012. 8/1/2009.. 8/1/2009.. 6/15/2010
2011. loan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
93 0 8/8/2011.. 8/17/2009. RD............... 09-2946.... Closure 7/5/ .............. .............. SFH--Rural 8/8/2009.. 964....... 3/29/2012. 8/8/2009.. 8/8/2009.. 5/5/2010
2011. Housing
Guaranteed Loan
(RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
94 0 8/17/2011. 8/25/2009. RD............... 09-2999.... Closure 6/23/ .............. .............. SFH--Rural 8/17/2009. 955....... 3/29/2012. 8/17/2009. 8/17/2009. 5/20/2010
2011. Housing
Guaranteed Loan
(RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95 0 2/14/2012. 2/26/2010. RD............... 10-3716.... Closure 6/23/ .............. .............. 502 Housing Loan 2/14/2010. 774....... 3/29/2012. 2/14/2010. 2/14/2010. 4/30/2010
2011. (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
96 0 2/22/2012. 9/8/2010.. FSA.............. 10-4260.... Closure 6/23/ .............. .............. Farm Operating 8/23/2010. 766....... 3/29/2012. 2/22/2010. 2/22/2010. 8/3/2010
2011. Loan (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
97 0 6/3/2011.. 10/7/2009. RD............... 10-3337.... Partial .............. .............. SFH--Rural 10/7/2009. 1030...... 3/29/2012. 6/3/2009.. 6/4/2009.. 4/30/2010
Finding 6/03/ Housing
2011. Guaranteed Loan
(RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98 0 5/18/2011. 6/9/2009.. FSA.............. 09-2724.... NF 5/18/2011.. .............. .............. Farm Operating 5/1/2709.. 1046...... 3/29/2012. 5/18/2009. 4/14/2009. ..........
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99 0 5/18/2011. 1/20/2010. FSA.............. 10-3593.... NF 5/18/2011.. .............. .............. Farm Operating 12/30/2009 1046...... 3/29/2012. 5/18/2009. 5/1/2009.. ..........
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 0 5/19/2011. 4/7/2009.. FSA.............. 09-2455.... NF 5/19/2011.. .............. .............. Farm Operating 4/1/2009.. 1045...... 3/29/2012. 5/19/2009. 4/2/2009.. 4/16/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101 0 5/26/2012. 7/15/2010. FSA.............. 10-4089.... Adjudication .............. .............. Farm Operating 7/6/2010.. 673....... 3/29/2012. 5/26/2010. 5/26/2010. 8/3/2010
Admin Close. Loan (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
102 0 5/13/2011. 3/5/2009.. RD............... 09-2311.... NF 5/13/2011.. .............. .............. SFH--Rural 2/16/2009. 1051...... 3/29/2012. 5/13/2009. 5/13/2009. 4/23/2010
Housing
Guaranteed Loan
(RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103 0 5/5/2011.. 5/27/2009. FSA.............. 09-2646.... NF 5/4/2011... .............. .............. Farm Operating 5/4/2009.. 1059...... 3/29/2012. 5/5/2009.. 5/5/2009.. 5/20/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
104 0 4/30/2011. 6/10/2009. FSA.............. 09-2726.... NF 5/2/2011... .............. .............. Farm Operating 6/5/2009.. 1064...... 3/29/2012. 4/30/2009. 6/5/2009.. 4/16/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
105 0 5/1/2011.. 3/4/2009.. FSA.............. 09-2302.... NF 5/2/2011... .............. .............. Farm Operating 7/7/2009.. 1063...... 3/29/2012. 5/1/2009.. 5/1/2009.. ..........
Loan (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
106 0 4/23/2011. 5/6/2010.. RHS.............. 10-3898.... F 4/25/2011... .............. .............. 504 Loan Grant/ 4/28/2010. 1071...... 3/29/2012. 4/23/2009. 4/23/2009. 5/20/2010
Loan (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
107 0 8/1/2011.. 11/17/2009 FSA.............. 10-3367.... Admin Closure. .............. .............. Farm Operating 11/12/2009 971....... 3/29/2012. 8/1/2009.. 8/1/2009.. 5/5/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
108 0 5/7/2011.. 5/27/2009. RD............... 09-2667.... Admin Closure. .............. .............. SFH--Rural 5/7/2009.. 1057...... 3/29/2012. 5/7/2009.. 5/7/2009.. 5/20/2010
Housing
Guaranteed Loan
(RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
109 0 4/1/2011.. 6/12/2009. RD............... 09-2815.... Admin Closure. .............. .............. Rural Housing.... 6/24/2009. 1093...... 3/29/2012. 4/1/2009.. 4/1/2009.. 4/23/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
110 0 4/8/2011.. 4/21/2009. FSA.............. 09-2501.... F 4/8/2011.... .............. .............. Farm Operating 4/15/2009. 1086...... 3/29/2012. 4/8/2009.. 4/8/2009.. 4/16/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
111 0 4/9/2011.. 5/6/2009.. FSA.............. 09-2580.... NF 4/11/2011.. .............. .............. Farm Operating 4/30/2009. 1085...... 3/29/2012. 4/9/2009.. 4/9/2009.. 4/16/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
112 0 6/1/2011.. 10/14/2010 FSA.............. 11-4379.... Status Change .............. .............. Farm Operating 9/27/2010. 1032...... 3/29/2012. 6/1/2009.. 6/1/2009.. 2/3/2011
No Longer Loans (FSA).
ECoa (RC).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
113 0 4/17/2011. 4/30/2009. FSA.............. 09-2560.... Admin Closure. .............. .............. Farm Operating 4/17/2009. 1077...... 3/29/2012. 4/17/2009. 4/17/2009. Request to
Loans (FSA). withdraw
ltr. Was
mailed to
Comp. on
040610
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
114 0 5/18/2011. 5/27/2009. FSA.............. 09-2651.... Admin Closure. .............. .............. Farm Operating 5/18/2009. 1046...... 3/29/2012. 5/18/2009. 5/18/2009. Need ECOA
Loans (FSA). ltr. Gave
to TMJ on
051910
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
115 0 4/2/2011.. 4/26/2009. RD............... 09-2568.... NF 4/4/2011... .............. .............. SFH--Rural 4/16/2009. 1092...... 3/29/2012. 4/2/2009.. 4/2/2009.. 4/16/2010
Housing Direct
Loans (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
116 0 4/15/2011. 4/22/2009. FSA.............. 09-2524.... Admin Closure. .............. .............. Farm Operating 4/14/2009. 1079...... 3/29/2012. 4/15/2009. 4/15/2009. ..........
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
117 0 3/19/2011. 6/5/2009.. FSA.............. 09-2729.... NF 3/21/2011.. .............. .............. Farm Operating 5/29/2009. 1106...... 3/29/2012. 3/19/2009. 3/19/2009. 6/15/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
118 0 4/30/2011. 5/13/2009. RD............... 09-2622.... Admin Closure. .............. .............. SFH--Rural 4/30/2009. 1064...... 3/29/2012. 4/30/2009. 4/30/2009. 5/24/2010
Housing Direct
Loans (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
119 0 3/6/2011.. 4/7/2009.. RD............... 09-2438.... Adjudication .............. .............. RD (loan)........ 3/25/2009. 1119...... 3/29/2012. 3/6/2009.. 3/6/2009.. 6/15/2010
Admin Closure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
120 0 2/4/2011.. 6/30/2008. FSA.............. 8-1537..... Settlement 2/4/ .............. .............. Farm Operating 6/30/2008. 1149...... 3/29/2012. 2/4/2009.. 2/4/2009.. 4/15/2010
2011. Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
121 0 2/5/2011.. 2/9/2009.. FSA.............. 09-2233.... NF 2/7/2011... .............. .............. Farm Operating 1/15/2009. 1148...... 3/29/2012. 2/5/2009.. 2/5/2009.. 4/16/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
122 0 1/8/2011.. 2/24/2009. FSA.............. 09-2273.... NF 1/10/2011.. .............. .............. Farm Operating 1/27/2009. 1176...... 3/29/2012. 1/8/2009.. 1/8/2009.. 4/16/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
123 0 1/21/2011. 1/6/2009.. RD............... 09-2164.... NF 1/20/2011.. .............. .............. SFH--Rural 12/21/2008 1163...... 3/29/2012. 1/21/2009. 1/21/2009. 4/16/2010
Housing Direct
Loans (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
124 0 7/7/2011.. 7/22/2009. RD............... 09-2861.... Adjudication .............. .............. SFH--Housing 7/16/2009. 996....... 3/29/2012. 7/7/2009.. 7/7/2009.. 4/30/2010
Admin Closure. Repair &
Rehabilitation
Loan (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
125 0 1/6/2011.. 1/29/2009. FSA.............. 09-2210.... NF 1/6/2011.. .............. .............. Farm Operating 1/8/2009.. 1178...... 3/29/2012. 1/6/2009.. 1/6/2009.. 4/23/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
126 0 12/21/2010 2/2/2009.. RD............... 09-2226.... NF 12/21/10... .............. .............. RBP--Business & 1/20/2009. 1194...... 3/29/2012. 12/21/2008 12/21/2008 4/16/2010
Industry
Guaranteed Loans
(RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
127 0 12/20/2010 11/13/2008 FSA.............. 8-1651..... NF 12/20/10... .............. .............. Farm Operating 11/3/2008. 1195...... 3/29/2012. 12/20/2008 12/20/2008 4/23/2010
Loan (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
128 0 12/20/2010 8/5/2008.. FSA.............. 8-1660..... F 12/20/10.... .............. .............. Farm Operating 8/1/2008.. 1195...... 3/29/2012. 12/20/2008 12/20/2008 4/15/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
129 0 11/29/2010 1/7/2009.. RD............... 09-2129.... NF 11/26/10... .............. .............. SFH--Rural 12/27/2008 1218...... 3/29/2012. 11/27/2008 11/27/2008 4/23/2010
Housing Direct
Loans (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
130 0 11/13/2010 12/23/2008 RD............... 09-2118.... NF............ .............. .............. SFH--Rural 12/4/2008. 1232...... 3/29/2012. 11/13/2008 11/13/2008 4/23/2010
Housing Direct
Loans (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
131 0 11/1/2010. 10/29/2008 FSA.............. 09-1973.... NF 10/28/10... .............. .............. Farm Operating 10/18/2008 1244...... 3/29/2012. 11/1/2008. 11/1/2008. 4/15/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
132 0 9/17/2010. 12/15/2008 FSA.............. 09-2095.... NF 9/16/10.... .............. .............. Beginning Farm 12/5/2008. 1289...... 3/29/2012. 9/17/2008. 9/17/2008. 4/23/2010
loan denied
(SOL).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
133 0 8/13/2010. 8/20/2008. RD............... 8-1715..... NF 8/12/10.... .............. .............. SFH--Rural 8/14/2008. 1324...... 3/29/2012. 8/13/2008. 8/13/2008. 4/23/2010
Housing Direct
Loans (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
134 0 8/19/2010. 8/27/2008. FSA.............. 8-1744..... F 8/19/10..... .............. .............. Farm Operating 8/20/2008. 1318...... 3/29/2012. 8/19/2008. 8/19/2008. 4/15/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
135 0 6/14/2010. 6/21/2008. FSA.............. 8-1269..... NF 6/11/10.... .............. .............. Farm Operating 6/9/2008.. 1384...... 3/29/2012. 6/14/2008. 6/14/2008. 5/27/2010
Loans (FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
136 0 5/16/2010. 5/14/2008. FSA.............. 7-0270..... F 5/17/10..... .............. .............. Farm Storage 5/16/2008. 1413...... 3/29/2012. 5/16/2008. 5/16/2008. 4/27/2010
Facility Loans
(FSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
137 0 5/6/2010.. 5/20/2008. RD............... 8-1416..... F 5/10/10..... .............. .............. SFH--Rural 5/15/2008. 1423...... 3/29/2012. 5/6/2008.. 5/6/2008.. 4/19/2010
Housing Direct
Loans (RD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current date: 3/29/2012.
Priority 1 =<180 days from 2-year incident date.
Priority 2 =181-365 days from 2-year incident date.
Priority 3 = >365 days from 2-/5-year incident date.
Case SOL TBD.
Case held in abeyance.
Cases resolved prior to SOL expiration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Title Initial
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tonya Ahmed.......................................................... Investigator........ TA
Sterling August...................................................... Investigator........ SA
Karen Bascombe-Cleaver............................................... Investigator........ KBC
Moses Brown.......................................................... Investigator........ MB
Cinnamon Butler...................................................... Investigator........ CB
Roberto Contreras.................................................... Investigator........ RC
Michele Ferreira..................................................... Investigator........ MF
Shawntey Fox......................................................... Investigator........ SF
Alpha Griffin........................................................ Investigator........ AG
William Henry........................................................ Investigator........ WH
Loretha Johnson...................................................... Investigator........ LJ
Minh Pham............................................................ Investigator........ MP
Edward Profit........................................................ Investigator........ EP
Carletta Watkins..................................................... Investigator........ CW
Kristine Yen......................................................... Investigator........ CY
Barrett Caine........................................................ Adjudicator......... BC
Leila Levi........................................................... Adjudicator......... LL
Carla Quincy......................................................... Adjudicator......... CQ
William Reid Strong.................................................. Adjudicator......... RS
Pilar Velasquez...................................................... Adjudicator......... PV
Millie West-Wigins................................................... Adjudicator......... MWW
Tysan Williams....................................................... Adjudicator......... TW
Keyo & Judy.......................................................... Adjudicator......... K&J
Heather.............................................................. Adjudicator......... H&N
Lawrence Rudden...................................................... Adjudicator......... LR
Neema G.............................................................. Adjudicator......... NG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE STATUS CODES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Intake Div................................................................ PI
Program Investigations Div........................................................ PID
Program Adjudications Div......................................................... PAD
Fact Finding...................................................................... FF
Transfer.......................................................................... T
Admin Closure..................................................................... AC
Actual Incident Date Change....................................................... AIDC
Finding........................................................................... F
No Finding........................................................................ NF
ECOA Complaint Addition.......................................................... ECA
Assignment........................................................................ ASMT
Pending........................................................................... P
Status Change..................................................................... SC
Closure........................................................................... C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary Vilsack. We are now in a process of knowing.
We've got a red, green, yellow system, and if it's a red, it
tells us that within a certain period of time we've got to get
a response, otherwise their claim expires. We have not let that
happen.
Senator Pryor. That's great. I know you have been improving
this, but I met with a fairly large group in Arkansas, 3 or 4
months ago, I don't remember exactly when it was, and that was
one of the concerns that pretty much everybody in the group
had.
Secretary Vilsack. They don't know what the system is,
Senator. I mean that's just not accurate.
Senator Pryor. Okay. We have one claim, apparently, that's
2 years old, that they haven't gotten a response from you guys
yet. I'll tell you what. We'll sit down after this. I'll send
my folks over, or you can send your folks over. We can talk
about it.
Secretary Vilsack. I'm happy to talk to you about it, but
sometimes it turns out that there's more to the story than
either you or I are getting, and if we have a claim that's more
than 2 years old, I'm happy to personally get that rectified.
But, I will tell you that we are very focused on this, because
we are not interested in giving rise to the tens-of-thousands
of lawsuits and claims that I've been working on for the last
couple of years to get resolved.
[The information follows:]
In 2009, USDA discovered more than 14,000 documents that had been
classified as civil rights program complaints filed against the
Department between 2001 and 2008 that had barely been looked into. Many
of these documents in fact turned out to be complaints, alleging
discrimination under a variety of laws, including title VI, section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act, the Food Stamp Act, and the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act (ECOA). The delayed and minimal processing of
complaints during the previous Administration was particularly
troubling for those cases that fell under the ECOA. The ECOA, which
prohibits discrimination in lending, is distinct from other civil
rights laws because under the ECOA, the Government can be held liable
by a court for compensatory damages. In addition, the USDA has the
authority to provide monetary relief to resolve an administrative
complaint of lending discrimination against the Department provided the
complainant could still go to court on that claim (e.g., the statute of
limitations is not expired). For incidents of discrimination that
occurred before July 21, 2009, the statute of limitations for ECOA
claims is 2 years.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Dodd Frank Financial Reform Act extended the statute of
limitations to 5 years, but the extension was not retroactive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration proposed $40 million in the fiscal year 2013
President's budget request for the purpose of settling written claims
filed under the ECOA from July 1, 1997, to October 31, 2009. This
funding would be subject to authorization by Congress to allow USDA to
waive the statute of limitations to settle these claims.
A farmer or other customer with an ECOA claim does not have to file
a complaint with USDA; they have the right to proceed directly to
court. However, litigation can be a costly alternative to the
administrative process. When the backlog was discovered, the typical
processing time for a civil rights complaint was 4 years, with many
cases taking much longer, which meant that by the time a decision was
rendered on a complaint, no monetary relief could be provided by USDA
where discrimination and resulting economic harm was found. To ensure
that a backlog like the one encountered did not occur again, the
Department set a policy to resolve all ECOA complaints either in formal
closure and/or a settlement before the expiration of the statute of
limitations. To achieve this goal, the Office of Civil Rights doubled
the number of investigators and adjudicators working on program
complaint processing, and instituted a Lean Six Sigma process
improvement initiative to streamline the complaint process and reduce
processing time. Since the new complaint staff have been recruited and
trained, every ECOA complaint filed with the USDA has been resolved
before the expiration of the statute of limitations. The typical
processing time for new civil rights program complaints has been
reduced from 4 years to 18 months. Processing time for one component of
the complaint process, complaint intake, has been reduced from an
average of 90 days to an average of 28 days to determine jurisdiction
and intake a complaint in 2012. Despite the extension of the ECOA
statute of limitations to 5 years in the Dodd Frank Financial Reform
Act, the Office of Civil Rights is pressing forward to further reduce
processing time for complaints. Just this year, the Office of Civil
Rights debuted a single, USDA-wide form that USDA customers and program
participants can use to file a civil rights complaint. By capturing all
of the information needed to accept a complaint, the form will reduce
the time it takes to process complaints. The form helps to simplify and
expedite the process for those who believe they have been discriminated
against. The Department knows how important it can be to customers to
receive a decision on their civil rights case and is committed to
making that happen as quickly as a fair, thorough, and just decision
can be reached.
Senator Pryor. Like I said, I think you deserve a lot of
credit for the progress you've made in that area, because it's
been something that's been neglected for a long time.
Thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Pryor, and we
thank you-all for being here today, particularly Secretary
Vilsack, for your very strong testimony.
We'll keep the record open for 1 week.
Secretary Vilsack. Thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
FIELD OFFICE CLOSINGS
Question. What is the current status of the Farm Service Agency
(FSA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Rural
Development office closings that were recently announced?
Answer. As of March 29, 2012, Rural Development (RD) closed 20 of
the 43 offices with plans to close the remaining office by the end of
fiscal year 2012 and NRCS plans to close or consolidate 24 offices by
the end of fiscal year 2012. At this time none of the NRCS offices have
been closed or consolidated. The 2008 farm bill (Public Law 110-246)
requires that FSA take no action toward final approval of the office
consolidation proposal until at least 90 days after the Secretary of
Agriculture notified Members of Congress of his proposal. This
notification occurred on February 27, 2012.
[Clerk's note: Subsequently, on May 29, FSA announced its decision
to consolidate 125 of the 131 offices originally proposed for
consolidation with other USDA Service Centers, consistent with
provisions of the 2008 farm bill.]
Question. What will be the total costs of closing offices in fiscal
year 2012?
Answer. The total estimated costs for the Department in fiscal year
2012 will be approximately $44.5 million.
Question. What do you estimate to be the total savings of these
closings in fiscal year 2013?
Answer. Total annual savings for all closures is approximately
$58.7 million, already reflected in the budget.
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE
Question. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is
responsible for ensuring that the Nation's commercial supply of meat,
poultry, and processed egg products is safe, wholesome, and correctly
labeled and packaged. This is accomplished through inspection and
regulation of the products by agency personnel. The budget calls for a
$13 million cut in funding associated with implementing new methods of
poultry inspection and reducing staff by 500 employees.
Have you begun negotiations with your unions on implementation of
the new inspection process?
Answer. We are currently conducting pre-decisional involvement
(PDI) sessions with the union that should be completed by June 2012. In
PDI, we work with representatives of the union by sharing information
about the proposed poultry slaughter process and asking the union to
identify its concerns. We have tried to find solutions to the union's
concerns to limit the scope of bargaining should we decide to go
forward with the final rule. PDI is essentially pre-negotiations.
Question. The $13 million in fiscal year 2013 savings assumes
implementation of the new inspection method by October. Is it realistic
to think you can obtain industry buy-in, successfully complete union
negotiations, and implement new procedures in such a short time?
Answer. Our timeline is very ambitious, and there are of course
some things beyond our control. However, FSIS is committed to
implementing on schedule. We understand that most large and small
plants favor the proposed change, so industry will likely seek to
participate shortly after a final rule is published. As stated above,
we are conducting pre-decisional involvement sessions with the union.
We are hopeful that these sessions will limit the scope of any
necessary bargaining, assuming that the agency decides to finalize the
proposal. When the agency makes a final decision on how to proceed, we
hope to conduct any negotiations with the union, possibly in late
summer. Our experience with the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point (HACCP)-based Inspection Models Project gives us some
understanding of the implementation tasks we face and will help us
manage the conversion should we decide to adopt the rule. Finally, our
estimate was based on spreading implementation over about 9 months, so
FSIS does not expect to have to convert a large number of plants
immediately in order to achieve our estimated savings.
We are currently conducting PDI sessions with the union. In PDI, we
work with representatives of the union by sharing information about the
proposed poultry slaughter process and asking the union to identify its
concerns. We have tried to find solutions to the union's concerns to
limit the scope of bargaining should we decide to go forward with the
final rule. PDI is essentially pre-negotiations.
Question. How do you plan to purge 500 employees from your roles
next year?
Answer. FSIS' goal is to ensure that every employee affected by
this proposed change is given an opportunity to remain with the agency.
We plan to accomplish most of the reductions through attrition and
reassignment to vacancies in other parts of the agency.
NON-O157
Question. In September 2011, FSIS published a ``Final
Determination'' that six additional strains of E. coli would be deemed
adulterants in certain beef products.
Please detail the process and scientific evidence on which this
determination was made.
Answer. FSIS developed a risk profile to examine the risk of non-
O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) as an emerging food
safety hazard associated with beef consumption in the United States.
This risk profile provides an in-depth review of the relevant science
to assess public health risk. The conclusions reached in the risk
profile include that raw non-intact beef products and raw components of
those products may harbor non-O157 STEC; that pathogenic non-O157 STECs
are injurious to human health; that ordinary cooking practices, which
include rare cooking, may be insufficient to destroy all cells of the
pathogen in beef; and that a low dose of a non-O157 STEC can induce
illness. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
estimate that each year, non-O157 STEC serotypes cause nearly 113,000
foodborne illnesses in the United States. Moreover, while more than 100
STEC serotypes have been associated with human illness, these six
serogroups cause between 70 and 83 percent of the confirmed non-O157
STEC illnesses. Thus, combating these six serogroups can have a
significant beneficial public health impact.
For these reasons, FSIS announced a final determination that raw,
non-intact beef products, or raw, intact beef products that are
intended for use in raw, non-intact product, that are contaminated with
STEC O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, and O145, are adulterated, per 21
U.S.C. 601(m)(1) and (m)(3).
Question. What are the implications on the industry and on our
international beef trading partners of this determination?
Answer. FSIS will launch its non-O157 E. coli testing program on
June 4, 2012, which will allow establishments time to validate their
test methods. FSIS will initially test raw beef manufacturing trimmings
(the major component of ground beef), and then expand testing to other
raw ground beef product components. FSIS will apply the new tests to
samples already being tested for other pathogens, so this policy will
ensure a safer, more reliable food supply with minimal additional cost
to the agency or to industry.
Foreign countries that export FSIS-regulated products to the United
States must maintain a food safety system equivalent to that of the
United States. Therefore, in February 2012, FSIS contacted foreign
governments already approved for the export of raw beef to the United
States and informed them that FSIS would make a limited amount of
reagents used in the FSIS laboratory method for non-O157 STEC
serogroups available to a foreign government if that government wanted
to conduct a comparative analysis of its methods with test kits
assessed by FSIS.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
2013 Budget Resource Reallocation
Question. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the flagship
in-house research agency of the Department.
This budget proposes to redirect over $70 million in resources from
``lower priority programs'' to higher priority research activities.
Please explain your process to determine the priority of research
initiatives, and how decisions were made to reallocate resources.
Answer. Focusing on the need to reallocate limited resources to
address high-priority initiatives, all research programs were
systematically evaluated based on relevance, quality, impact and cost
effectiveness. The fiscal year 2013 budget recommends selected high-
priority initiatives which address the administration's science and
technology priorities and the Department's strategic goals. The
reallocation of these resources would allow Congress to fund higher
priority agriculture research identified in the fiscal year 2013
budget.
Question. Is the redirection of $70 million in resources in 1 year
normal for your research portfolio or is this unusually high?
Answer. The reduction of $70 million is not unusually high. In
fiscal years 2009 through 2012, the President's budget for ARS proposed
reductions and/or terminations of research activities ranging from $39
million to $146 million to help offset proposed initiatives.
Agricultural Research Service Lab Closures
Question. This budget proposes to close five laboratories within
existing facilities, and to close one facility entirely. Please explain
how these decisions were made.
Answer. Decisions regarding which programs to propose for
termination or closure are always difficult but necessary, given the
ongoing budget constraints and changing priorities of research
endeavors. These research laboratories proposed for closure met one or
more of the following criteria:
--Considered by the administration to be of lower priority;
--Mature where the research objectives have been mainly accomplished;
--Duplicative or can be accomplished more effectively elsewhere in
ARS;
--Marginal or below threshold funding for program viability or
sustainability;
--Conducted in substandard or inadequate infrastructure and future
costs are prohibitive;
--Lacking a critical mass of scientists/support personnel for an
effective program; or
--Are carried out by other research institutions.
Question. What will happen to the employees at these locations?
Answer. USDA will strive to place all impacted permanent Federal
employees in suitable jobs where ARS position vacancies exist and for
which the employee is qualified. While every effort will be made to
identify a position for all impacted employees, USDA cannot guarantee
that all employees will be placed. In the event that a placement cannot
be identified for an impacted employee, the Department will ensure that
the individual is provided all the entitlements and protections
available under prescribed personnel procedures and programs.
Question. How much will it cost to close these labs in 2013?
Answer. The estimated cost to accommodate the impacted employees
and dispose of the real property ranges from $10 million to $12
million. These costs may be spread over 2 fiscal years, depending on
how quickly the real property assets can be disposed.
Question. When do you expect to begin realizing savings from these
closures?
Answer. Beginning in fiscal year 2013, the $17 million associated
with the research activities at the six laboratories will be
reallocated to high-priority research in other ARS laboratories. After
all costs have been expensed, the closure of these laboratories will
allow ARS to achieve significant cost avoidance in the capital
improvement and repair/maintenance of these facilities beginning in
2014.
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
Budget Reductions
Question. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
promotes the health of animal and plant resources to facilitate their
movement in international markets, and works to ensure abundant
agricultural products for U.S. consumers. These responsibilities
include monitoring plant and animal health, working to eliminate or
control invasive pests, facilitating safely bringing benefits of
genetic research into the market place, providing diagnostic laboratory
activities, assisting developing countries improve their safeguarding
systems, and protecting and promoting animal welfare. However, the
budget proposes a 7-percent funding reduction, and elimination of 151
employees.
How do you plan to meet these responsibilities with such severe
cuts in funding and staffing?
Answer. The 2013 budget identified several ways for APHIS to
operate more efficiently, allowing APHIS to maximize its resources to
carry out its mission. APHIS has implemented a variety of changes in
its operations that will result in cost-savings for fiscal year 2013,
including the consolidation of information technology customer service
support and switching telecommunications technology. In addition, APHIS
has identified other areas where a shift in methodology can allow
savings and still achieve the agency's goals. For example, APHIS has
developed several statistical and epidemiological methods to increase
the efficiency of animal health surveillance while continuing to meet
international standards, saving $9 million. APHIS also is implementing
business process improvements that will result in savings in areas such
as licensing of veterinary biologics products, import and export
reviews, and reviews of petitions to determine the regulatory status of
genetically engineered crops. The agency's budget request reflects the
implementation of the identified efficiencies and changes in strategies
without compromising our mission and services.
APHIS is also proposing further reductions in the agency's
contributions towards domestic and international efforts to allow those
who benefit from our services to contribute, or to scale back the
Federal role when a pest or disease is simply too widespread. We will
continue to place high priority on protecting the health and value of
American agriculture by focusing on those pests or diseases that pose
the greatest risk and facilitating safe agricultural trade.
Question. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service promotes
the health of animal and plant resources to facilitate their movement
in international markets, and works to ensure abundant agricultural
products for U.S. consumers. These responsibilities include monitoring
plant and animal health, working to eliminate or control invasive
pests, facilitating safely bringing benefits of genetic research into
the market place, providing diagnostic laboratory activities, assisting
developing countries improve their safeguarding systems, and protecting
and promoting animal welfare. However, the budget proposes a 7-percent
funding reduction, and elimination of 151 employees.
Can you provide assurances that existing safeguards protecting
against intrusion of new invasive pests into the United States will not
be weakened?
Answer. APHIS uses a comprehensive set of measures to safeguard the
United States against the introduction of foreign pests and diseases.
These measures include assessing and reducing threats overseas through
information collection and collaborating with foreign governments, and
implementing regulatory import policies designed to facilitate trade
while excluding high-risk products. The agency also works with the
Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection to
enforce these regulations, monitoring for introductions of high-risk
pests and diseases in the United States and maintaining emergency
response capabilities to respond when outbreaks occur.
In developing its fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, APHIS carefully
examined its programs and operations to determine where we could gain
efficiencies while maintaining focus on the areas that pose the highest
risks. For example, APHIS has proposed decreases related to changes in
epidemiological methods for swine and cattle disease surveillance.
These changes will allow the agency to realize savings while still
meeting international standards. In other cases, APHIS identified
efficiencies that could be gained in telecommunications and information
technology that will have little or no effect on program operations and
reduce overall costs. Other reductions target programs for pests and
diseases that are already established in the United States, such as
emerald ash borer (EAB), and focus resources on those programs where
they could make a difference. Despite intensive efforts by APHIS and
cooperating States to address this pest, we lack the tools needed to
control it. APHIS will continue to work on tools to manage EAB over the
long term and protect U.S. forests and urban landscapes. The overall
proposed reduction is the result of our efforts to identify targeted
changes and reduce costs while focusing on the highest risk areas.
Question. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service promotes
the health of animal and plant resources to facilitate their movement
in international markets, and works to ensure abundant agricultural
products for U.S. consumers. These responsibilities include monitoring
plant and animal health, working to eliminate or control invasive
pests, facilitating safely bringing benefits of genetic research into
the market place, providing diagnostic laboratory activities, assisting
developing countries improve their safeguarding systems, and protecting
and promoting animal welfare. However, the budget proposes a 7-percent
funding reduction, and elimination of 151 employees.
Much of this savings assumes State-cooperating agencies accept
higher costs. Have you discussed with your State partners their
willingness to take on these higher costs? What are the implications of
States being unable to pay more for these activities? Do you have a
back-up plan?
Answer. Most of APHIS' plant and animal health programs are
cooperative efforts with State and local partners, and we understand
that our budget proposal affects them. In developing the agency's
budget request, we had to make difficult choices to enable us to best
protect the health of American agriculture while balancing the
President's priority of reducing the deficit. Under the reality of
current resource limitations, it is reasonable to share with
cooperators the costs of programs for which they will receive a
benefit.
When addressing pests and diseases of national concern, the Federal
Government's role traditionally is to coordinate and manage program
efforts, and ensure that we apply program methods and technologies
consistently in all affected States and areas. Since these pests and
diseases have a direct impact on State and local conditions and since
States and localities are beneficiaries of the actions, it is expected
that all parties will devote available resources to the effort. 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.
These decreases will result in a more appropriate allocation of funding
responsibility given the budget realities we face, and a transparent
level of Federal contribution will allow cooperators to plan for future
needs. 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 pest and disease programs based on the total
available resources while considering the highest priorities for the
program. We will continue to work cooperatively with our State partners
on these programs and use available resources as effectively as
possible.
ANIMAL WELFARE
Question. Animal Welfare has been a high priority of this
administration. In past years the Department transferred funds from
other accounts to supplement these activities. However, this budget
cuts Animal Welfare funding by over 11 percent (larger than the overall
reduction to the agency). What has caused this change in the
administration's priority toward Animal Welfare responsibilities?
Answer. Animal Welfare still remains a high priority of the
administration. APHIS recognizes that we need to do our part in helping
to reduce Federal spending. As such, we are scaling back operations as
a cost-savings measure, including our priority areas such as animal
welfare inspection and enforcement. Even with the proposed budget in
2013, the Animal Welfare program remains a priority and will be
comparable to the adjusted fiscal year 2011 funding level, including
the reprogramming of $2.5 million in funding.
Additionally, APHIS will continue its focus on the most egregious
violators of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) while seeking ways to operate
more efficiently in fiscal year 2013. The agency has implemented
measures to enhance its animal welfare inspection and enforcement
efforts in recent years. These measures include identifying potential
regulation changes related to commercial dog breeders and dealers, re-
evaluating the current methodology for calculating the frequency of
inspection, and developing and sponsoring meetings and trainings aimed
at increasing compliance with the AWA. APHIS also conducted a business
process improvement analysis of its enforcement activities, including
animal welfare enforcement. After identifying more than 80
recommendations for streamlining its processes and improving
timeliness, the agency pilot tested several recommendations with
considerable success. These business process improvement efforts will
allow quicker and more effective actions that require fewer resources.
LACEY ACT
Question. One of the rare increases in this budget is for
implementation of Lacey Act responsibilities. In fact, the budget seeks
to double Lacey Act spending by 50 percent, to $1.5 million. Please
describe what the Department is doing this year regarding its Lacey Act
responsibilities. In your view, do you think this USDA effort is
successful? What do you plan to do with the 50-percent increase? Could
these responsibilities be more efficiently handled outside the
Department?
Answer. As amended in the 2008 farm bill, the Lacey Act prohibits
the importation of any plant, with limited exceptions, taken or traded
in violation of domestic or international laws. The amendments were
designed to address illegal logging in other countries. Illegal logging
is environmentally destructive and undermines markets for wood products
produced in the United States, affecting businesses and jobs. Among
other things, the Lacey Act requires a declaration for imported
shipments of regulated products. This declaration must contain the
scientific name of the plant, the importation value, the quantity of
the plant, and name of the country where the plant was taken.
APHIS began phased-in enforcement of the Lacey Act in May 2009 and
currently receives about 10,000 declarations per week. Approximately 10
percent of these are submitted on paper forms that require significant
resources to analyze and store. Currently, electronic declarations can
only be made through licensed Customs brokers. In 2012, APHIS has
$775,000 available for activities conducted under the amendments to the
Lacey Act. The agency is using these funds for a dedicated staff,
secure document storage, and outreach activities to inform the various
industries and importers affected by the Lacey Act amendments. The
program selects 1 percent of the declarations at random for a cursory
review and stores the remaining documents. The Department of Homeland
Security's Customs and Border Protection collects the electronic
declarations and sends them to APHIS on a weekly basis. For 2013, the
agency is requesting an additional $725,000 for a total funding level
of $1.5 million. With these additional funds, the program would work
toward providing an easier electronic means for collecting and
maintaining declarations to help eliminate the need for paper-based
declarations. This will provide another alternative to importers for
filing declarations (as importers currently must go through a licensed
customs broker or fill out a paper declaration) and allow APHIS to be
more responsive to importers' needs. In addition, APHIS would utilize
additional staff to assist with Lacey Act activities and expand
outreach efforts to affected industries so they better understand the
act's requirements. With the requested increase in 2013, the program
anticipates selecting an increased share of the declarations for a
review.
APHIS is working within an interagency group representing the U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Trade Representative, U.S. Department of
Justice, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Council on Environmental Quality, and the U.S. Department of Commerce,
to implement the Lacey Act provisions and review the program. The
interagency group represents a broad range of viewpoints on how to
implement the act. Because of APHIS' regulatory role and interaction
with the importing community as well as its ongoing joint efforts with
CBP through the Agriculture Quarantine Inspection program, the agency
is well positioned to implement the act. APHIS will continue working
with its partners to administer the Lacey Act in the most efficient
manner possible given the volume of declarations and products covered.
BIOTECHNOLOGY REGULATORY SERVICES
Question. In the past, this subcommittee has provided increased
funding for Biotechnology Regulatory Services to support an effective
biotechnology compliance program for genetically engineered organisms.
Private sector demands on these services continue to expand. Currently,
the agency currently faces litigation due to its inability meet its
regulatory responsibilities in a timely manner. However, this budget
reduces this funding by 8 percent. How do you plan to improve this
unfortunate situation with a large funding cut?
Answer. I appreciate the subcommittee's support for APHIS'
Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS) program. BRS is integral to the
process of ensuring that genetically engineered (GE) crops under
development can be safely tested and brought to market. After a careful
evaluation of the nonregulated status petition review process, APHIS
has identified several process improvements that are expected to
achieve the goal of reducing the overall length and variability of the
time it takes for the petition process. Once complete, this effort is
expected to reduce review time by more than 50 percent (average review
times will decrease from about 3 years to just over 1 year). For
instance, APHIS has eliminated unnecessary steps, clarified and
simplified responsibilities, and put into place time frames for
completion of individual steps while maintaining appropriate
safeguards. Additionally, a portion of the program's $5 million
increase in fiscal year 2012 will be used for one-time legal fees
related to litigation over GE alfalfa. The remaining portion will be
used to hire additional staff and enter into contracts for
environmental analysis to support the improvements to the petition
review process. While we are proposing a small decrease in fiscal year
2013, biotechnology remains a priority for the agency. Even with the
proposed reduction, the BRS funding level would increase more than 25
percent from the fiscal year 2010 level of $13.3 million to the fiscal
year 2013 request of about $16.8 million.
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
Microbiological Data Program
Question. The fiscal year 2012 House report did not include funding
for the Microbiological Data Program. The conference report included
the following statement:
``The statement of the managers remains silent on provisions that
were in both House Report and Senate Report that remain unchanged by
this conference agreement, except as noted in this statement of the
managers.''.
Please explain why this program was zeroed out in the budget even
though no funding was provided in fiscal year 2012.
Answer. The Microbiological Data Program (MDP) was continued in
2012 because the funding reduction in the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 for Marketing Services (which
includes MDP) could not be positively identified. While the House
provided $77,500,000 for Marketing Services, accompanied by
Appropriations Committee report language that denied funding for MDP,
the Senate and final Appropriations Act provided $82,211,000. Both the
Senate committee and conference reports were silent on the matter. The
program was zeroed out in the fiscal year 2013 proposed budget due to
budget constraints. In developing the fiscal year 2013 budget, we took
a hard look at activities which support AMS' core mission. The fiscal
year 2013 budget eliminates funding for MDP, which saves about $4.3
million. This reduces discretionary funding while focusing Marketing
Services resources on AMS' core mission. AMS is not a food safety
agency and MDP is not closely aligned with AMS's core mission to
facilitate the competitive and efficient marketing of U.S. agricultural
products.
PESTICIDE RECORDKEEPING PROGRAM
Question. The budget proposes to terminate the Pesticide
Recordkeeping Program. Currently, 27 States and 2 territories are
reimbursed to conduct federally recognized State pesticide
recordkeeping requirements. This program has been in place since 1992.
Please explain the rationale for terminating this program in light
of ever-shrinking State budgets.
Answer. We continue to take practical steps to control expenditures
and optimize organizational structure to more effectively manage
current and future resources. In making budget determinations we are
focusing on AMS' core mission to facilitate competitive and efficient
marketing of U.S. agricultural products.
Question. Since this program has been operating for 20 years, why
does AMS now believe it is no longer central to its core mission?
Answer. We took a hard look at activities that support AMS'
marketing-based mission and Pesticide Recordkeeping is not as closely
aligned with marketing as other AMS activities such as Market News or
Transportation and Market Development. Although Federal monitoring and
advisory services will be discontinued, applicators of restricted use
pesticides will still be required to retain their records and provide
access upon request to Federal and State agency representatives. Since
the Federal program has been operating for 20 years, we have had the
opportunity to educate a large number of private applicators of
federally restricted use pesticides. More than 100,000 pesticide
recordkeeping manuals, brochures and other outreach materials have been
distributed each year by the program to producers.
CONSERVATION
Question. The budget proposes a decrease of $2.5 million and 142
staff years for conservation technical assistance.
How does NRCS plan to provide important technical assistance with
fewer funds and fewer staff?
Answer. NRCS will continue to provide important technical
assistance to landowners in addressing their resource issues and
concerns. This will be accomplished through the use of improved
delivery and streamlining processes such as the Conservation Delivery
Streamlining Initiative (CDSI), expanding the role of Technical Service
Providers (TSPs), and continuing to build strong conservation
partnerships with local, State, and Federal entities as well as with
the private sector.
Question. Please describe what organizational improvements NRCS
plans to implement.
Answer. In coordination with the USDA Blueprint for Stronger
Service, NRCS is taking a holistic look at our entire organization to
ensure we are well prepared to meet our mission now and in the years to
come. NRCS currently has teams working on 17 major efforts that will
result in a streamlined, efficient organization to transform NRCS into
a 21st century, multi-billion dollar agency that can adapt to change
while delivering exceptional conservation assistance to private
landowners. The information is provided below.
The efforts are organized into five categories:
--Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative (CDSI).--This effort
will result in new and innovative technology that will support
conservation assistance process online, streamline service
delivery, and will give landowners 24/7 access to their
conservation information. It will allow conservationists to
spend more time in the field while enabling administrative
experts to handle the administrative tasks of programs and
applications.
In fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2013, CDSI will implement a
national strategy to realign field positions through the
establishment of program support specialist position. This
position will reduce the administrative burden on the technical
field employees and enable a more streamlined and efficient
approach to the delivery of conservation support.
--Science Efforts.--NRCS launched efforts to gain agency-wide
efficiencies by sharing resources, reducing duplication of
effort, and enhancing our role as a leader in conservation
science while addressing decreased operating budgets. Efforts
include:
--Consolidate Soil Survey offices and provide shared services
across larger geographic regions;
--Reduce duplication of effort and streamline our system of
developing and maintaining conservation practice standards
and associated guidance;
--Improve our capacity to support complex engineering needs across
the country; and
--Create more effective and efficient systems for conservation
technology acquisition, development, and support to the
field.
In fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013, NRCS will implement the
consolidation of the Soil Survey offices, beginning with the 24
office closures identified by Secretary Vilsack.
--State Efforts.--NRCS is also working on State level improvement
efforts to coordinate, centralize, and streamline State
processes and needs.
--States are charged with finding ways to increase direct technical
service and increase resource sharing across State
boundaries. Selected States in each region will test models
where they reduce duplication by sharing services such as
contract management and technical expertise;
--NRCS is also evaluating the benefits of centralizing support for
quality assurance, equitable relief, and legal appeals at
national headquarters to reduce burdens on State and field
staff.
In fiscal year 2012, NRCS kicked off the multi-State servicing
pilot that is testing a comprehensive approach to identifying
areas for State-sharing, analyzing the option, and implementing
long-term strategies for sharing resources.
--Administrative Efforts.--NRCS is taking a comprehensive approach to
analyze administrative efforts; specifically NRCS is focusing
on four key administrative functions or areas:
--Budget and financial management;
--Human resources;
--Procurement; and
--Property functions within NRCS.
NRCS is determining short-term solutions to position NRCS to best
integrate the USDA Administrative Solutions Project and deliver
the best support to the field.
In fiscal year 2012, NRCS will be moving forward with the
development of a new administrative operating model that will
focus on streamlining processes, developing virtual teams, and
enhancing standardization. NRCS will develop and implement the
new operating model throughout fiscal year 2013 and this will
result in increased capacity for administrative services and
will position NRCS for improved performance.
--Modernization Efforts.--Modernization efforts across NRCS will look
at IT, Public Affairs, and Outreach to identify ways to improve
the delivery of communications and information services to our
internal and external customers.
In fiscal year 2012, NRCS began the modernization of the public
affairs and IT organizations. Public Affairs implemented the
redesign of the external Web site and engaged with GovDelivery
for modernization of communications delivery. Public Affairs is
also underway with a comprehensive redesign that is currently
in the baseline assessment stage and will result in fiscal year
2013 with additional improvements to the Public Affairs
function at NRCS. The IT assessment is currently underway as
well; an organization redesign is expected in fiscal year 2013.
This effort will help to improve IT delivery, enhance
oversight, and enable increased service delivery across NRCS.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Broadband
Question. This subcommittee has provided substantial support for
expanding high-speed broadband service to remote rural areas. The
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is now engaged in revising
access to the Universal Service Fund, on which the bulk of Rural
Development broadband loans rely for a portion of their income.
Reducing Universal Service Fund payments to rural providers will place
Rural Development's loan portfolio in severe jeopardy.
Please discuss how USDA is working with the FCC to ensure that
rural broadband providers are not treated unfairly under the new FCC
requirements.
Answer. Throughout the years, Rural Development and FCC have worked
closely to uphold the universal service provisions in the 1996
Telecommunications Act as Congress had intended. Those provisions
ensure that rural America has access to advanced telecommunications
services at rates and at levels of service that are comparable to those
offered in urban America. Prior to implementing the new Universal
Service Fund (USF) Reform Order, Rural Development consulted with FCC
on numerous occasions to help ensure that this important statutory
objective was fulfilled. Rural Development has provided briefings and
data to the FCC on its portfolio and on the impacts of revenue
reductions to RD's borrowers. The USDA also worked with the FCC in
developing a national broadband strategy published in 2009, as required
by the 2008 farm bill.
Question. What is USDA doing in the short run to protect existing
broadband borrowers and their rural customers?
Answer. In the short run, Rural Development is analyzing its
portfolio to determine the impacts of reduced USF and intercarrier
compensation revenues on rural telecommunications providers serving
rural high-cost communities. Rural Development has conducted a series
of listening sessions with borrowers, financial experts, and other
segments of the rural infrastructure sector to fully comprehend the
impact on rural America. Rural Development is keenly focused on making
sure that rural America continues to receive affordable, high-speed
broadband service required for economic development and job creation.
Question. Is the Department experiencing reduced loan demand due to
the uncertainty of looming changes to FCC requirements? If so, does
that affect the Department's broadband loan request for fiscal year
2013?
Answer. The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the
telecommunications industry continue to evaluate the impact of the FCC
revisions in USF, ICC, and local rates. While the level of uncertainty
caused by the order may delay project consideration, the agency fully
supports the proposed funding levels for fiscal year 2013. The
broadband infrastructure needs across rural America were demonstrated
by the tremendous response to the Recovery Act's Broadband Initiatives
Program (BIP). There were many valuable projects which simply could not
be funded. We are hopeful that some BIP applicants will apply for
regular RUS loan programs to further extend existing broadband networks
to rural areas. We are also hopeful the FCC will consider the needs of
RUS borrowers who are actively investing in rural broadband networks
made possible through the Recovery Act by reestablishing the regulatory
and financial certainty that is needed for rural telecommunications
investment to continue.
Question. When the FCC announced plans to reform the Universal
Service Fund, what changes did the Department make to its broadband
loan underwriting criteria to reflect this new uncertainty?
Answer. Even before FCC published it proposed USF Reform Order,
Rural Development revised its underwriting criteria in both our
infrastructure and broadband programs to determine reliance on USF and
the impact of reduced revenues. Only loans which meet more rigid
underwriting standards advance through this process to loan approval.
The agency further enhanced its underwriting criteria after the first
USF order was published and will continue to make changes to ensure any
taxpayer investments are secured.
HOUSING
Question. This budget calls for a 27-percent reduction in your
flagship direct single family housing loan program.
Is demand for this program going down?
Answer. The USDA budget proposal reflects the efforts of this
administration to do more with less and to make tough decisions where
necessary. Historically, the direct single family housing program has
helped low- and very-low-income borrowers to obtain homeownership. Our
budget proposal will refocus the direct single family housing program
to serve low- and very-low-income borrowers, and will target a portion
of the funding to help attract a new generation of bright, young
teachers to our rural schools.
Over the past decade, Rural Development has increasingly relied
upon guaranteed loans to cost effectively provide for the credit needs
of rural America. In fact, during this administration alone, funding
for the guaranteed single family housing program (excluding Recovery
Act funding) has quadrupled from about $6.2 billion to $24 billion in
2011. This funding has helped to fill a critical need for credit in
rural America, and importantly, this level of assistance is being
provided at no subsidy cost to taxpayers.
Question. What is the current backlog of applications and pre-
applications for these loans?
Answer. As of March 29, 2012, the total number of Section 502
Direct Loan applications on a waitlist pending processing due to the
lack of available funds is 11,398.
Question. Is there any other Federal direct loan program that
provides home-ownership assistance for low- and very-low-income rural
residents?
Answer. There is no other Federal direct loan program similar to
the Section 502 Direct Loan program. The Section 502 Direct Loan
program provides mortgage financing for low- and very-low-income rural
Americans unable to get credit from other sources. The program includes
a payment assistance feature to reduce the borrower's housing cost for
principal, interest, taxes, and insurance to approximately 24 percent
of income. The other fundamental difference in program administration
between USDA and other Federal housing programs such as Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) programs is USDA's field staff, which allows
USDA to maintain a local presence in the rural communities it serves.
Question. Why are you seeking such a drastic cut in the program?
Answer. Some of the same rural residents with low- and very-low-
incomes who qualify for loans under the single family housing direct
loan program can also qualify for the single family housing guaranteed
loan program. The primary difference between the two programs is that
the direct loans are made and serviced by USDA and in some instances
contain an interest subsidy. The guaranteed loans are made and serviced
by a bank or other commercial lender at the current market interest
rate and guaranteed by the Federal Government. Unlike the direct
program, the guaranteed program is provided at no subsidy cost to
taxpayers.
Question. Please discuss the requested set-asides for rural
teachers and self-help housing program participants. Why did you
elevate the priority of those applicants above others, including
healthcare workers, police and fire workers, daycare workers, etc?
Answer. The budget proposes to set aside a small portion of the
direct single family housing program funding for teachers and
beneficiaries of the Mutual and Self-Help Grant Program for a portion
of the fiscal year, after which the funds will be available for all
applicants.
The decision to set aside funding for the Mutual and Self-Help
Grant Program ensures that adequate loan funds are available to support
the grant funding provided by Congress. Without sufficient loan funding
we would be unable to fulfill the intent of Congress with respect to
self-help housing.
Rural Development remains committed to the support of all low- and
very-low-income families, regardless of their profession. Set aside
funding for teachers, however, would help address the shortage of
teachers willing to work in rural areas that lack affordable housing.
Teachers are a key factor in creating sustainable rural communities. By
targeting a portion of this assistance to teachers, we hope to
encourage many bright, young, and enthusiastic college graduates to
consider returning to rural America to begin their professions as
teachers.
Question. This budget seeks to eliminate the multi-family housing
direct loan program (section 515). The stated justification for this
elimination is that the guaranteed multi-family housing loan program
(section 538) also provides construction financing and more funds are
needed in the multi-housing revitalization program to maintain existing
projects.
How effective is the guaranteed loan program in promoting
construction in small towns and not just in larger communities?
Answer. The Multi-Family Housing (MFH) Guaranteed Rural Rental
Housing Program (section 538) is very effective in promoting
construction and preservation in rural areas. Like the MFH direct loan
program (section 515), the section 538 program is restricted to areas
of no more than 20,000 in population, unless eligible under a statutory
exception. Approximately 50 percent of the loans guaranteed under
section 538 preserve existing affordable properties in rural areas,
most notably section 515 properties. For new construction, financial
tools, including section 515 and section 538 loans, are more efficient
for properties with more units of affordable housing, so nearly all of
the new construction activity is in rural areas with populations
between 10,000 and 20,000.
Question. How effective is the guaranteed program in offering
affordable rents for very-low-income households?
Answer. The MFH Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program is very
effective in offering affordable rents to very-low-income seniors,
families, and individuals. The vast majority of tenants are under 80
percent of the area median income. More than 70 percent of all
properties financed in the past several years using the section 538
program also have low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC), which impose
lower income thresholds for tenants to qualify under the LIHTC program.
Under the LIHTC program tenants must be very-low-income (50 percent of
area median income) or low-income (less than 80 percent of area median
income) families. In the last 3 years alone, the MFH Guaranteed Rural
Rental Housing Program provided financing to build or preserve
approximately 200 apartment buildings with 11,100 apartments, of which
more than 9,400 are rented to very-low-income or low-income seniors,
families or individuals.
Question. What is the total funding needed for the revitalization
program?
Answer. We believe the budget request provides adequate funding for
the Revitalization Program.
community facilities
Question. This budget requests a $2 billion Community Facilities
Direct Loan Program (CF) level, up from $1.3 billion in fiscal year
2012.
Is there demand for a $2 billion annual loan program?
Answer. As a result of the credit crisis, one of the biggest issues
facing rural communities today is the lack of access to capital. In
recent years, the agency has seen an increase in funding requests for
projects that are larger in nature, scope, and complexity. Accordingly,
we believe the proposed program level reflects the sizable demand that
exists for infrastructure financing in rural areas.
Question. What is the current backlog of applications and pre-
applications?
Answer. As of May 2, 2012, the Community Facilities Program has a
total backlog of about $1.8 billion. This includes approximately 635
direct loan applications for $1.6 billion, over 900 grant applications
for $51 million, and 27 guaranteed loan applications for $131 million.
Question. Why is the guaranteed loan program eliminated?
Answer. The guaranteed loan program originated as an inexpensive
alternative to the direct loan program and was designed to stimulate
additional assistance to moderate income communities in rural areas.
The default rate for the program, however, has been much higher than
originally projected; in effect, this has made it more expensive than
the direct loan program. The proposed increase in the direct loan
program will more than offset the effects of the guaranteed loan
program termination.
RURAL JOBS ACCELERATOR
Question. We have recently become aware of a new initiative, the
Rural Jobs Accelerator, which apparently will be a joint effort among
USDA, the Economic Development Administration, the Delta Regional
Commission, and the Appalachian Regional Commission.
Please explain the purpose of this initiative and how it is
designed to work?
Answer. The programmatic guidelines and goals of the Rural Jobs and
Innovation Challenge (RJA) are very similar to those of the regular
RCDI; RJA merely emphasizes building regional capacity. To be eligible
for RJA, applicants must be eligible for the regular RCDI program.
RJA is a coordinated interagency funding opportunity designed to
promote accelerated job creation and community and economic development
in rural regions through regional collaboration. The RJA will provide
resources to support economic development in the areas of renewable
energy, food production, rural tourism, natural resources, and advanced
manufacturing. The RJA will also assist distressed rural communities in
accelerating job creation by leveraging local assets, building stronger
economies, and creating regional linkages. The Funding Partners include
USDA, the Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration
(EDA), the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), and the Delta
Regional Authority (DRA). This coordinated, integrated, interagency
initiative offers applicants the opportunity to submit a single project
narrative to access multiple funding sources that collaboratively
support regional development in rural communities.
Question. What are the performance measures you will use to gauge
the initiative's success?
Answer. Applications will be evaluated based on their ability to
satisfy core evaluation criteria. This includes building community and
regional capacity, linking to regional clusters and opportunities,
integrating and building regional partners, and utilizing multiple
resources to meet project objectives and promote substantive economic
growth in the region and rural communities. Grant recipients will
identify project milestones and submit reports throughout the project
period, along with a final project performance report. Success will be
gauged by the degree to which grant recipients achieve their project
milestones.
Question. What administrative and programmatic resources have you
committed in fiscal year 2012, and what resources do you hope to use in
fiscal year 2013, to support the initiative?
Answer. The Rural Jobs Accelerator will be administered using
existing USDA staff for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. Approximately half
($2.49 million) of the funding available for use in fiscal year 2011
and half ($1.81 million) of the funding available for use in fiscal
year 2012 for the Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI) will be
used to support this initiative. The remaining $4.33 million in RCDI
funding was announced under a separate notice of funding availability
on March 21, 2012.
Question. Will USDA's support in fiscal year 2012 require a
transfer or reprogramming of funds?
Answer. No. USDA is using existing authorities and a portion of the
existing appropriations for the Rural Community Development Initiative
(RCDI) to fund our portion of the Rural Jobs Accelerator. The projects
funded by USDA must meet all existing RCDI funding criteria and would
be eligible for RCDI assistance regardless of their participation in
the Rural Jobs Accelerator. However, by employing a ``whole-of-
government'' approach through the Rural Jobs Accelerator we can
significantly enhance the prospects for job growth in the selected
regions.
NUTRITION
Equipment Grants
Question. In 2009, this subcommittee provided $100 million through
ARRA for grants to allow schools to purchase and renovate their food
service equipment. The fiscal year 2013 budget for Child Nutrition
Programs includes $35 million for this same activity. In February 2012,
USDA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report criticizing
FNS' management of these ARRA funds. According to the OIG report, FNS
``did not create adequate, proactive controls to ensure that grants
were awarded based on Recovery Act criteria and accurate data.''
If funding is provided in fiscal year 2013, what assurances can FNS
provide to this subcommittee that funds will be managed appropriately?
Answer. USDA believes that the ARRA grant award process in its
totality was highly effective and met the goals set forth by the
Recovery Act to effectively and timely distribute funds to low-income
schools that clearly demonstrated need. The OIG audit did not identify
any instances of improper use of the ARRA funds, but it did identify
some areas for process improvement, and FNS will address these issues
where needed. FNS' oversight of the State agencies which operate the
school meals program will focus on ensuring that the processes used to
distribute grant funds meet all appropriate requirements and ensure
that funds are used for their intended purpose. As the audit report
notes, OIG has accepted FNS' plan to implement additional internal
controls within its standard competitive grant award processes,
identifying areas that can be strengthened for future grant awards. I
am confident that FNS would appropriately manage another round of
school equipment funding.
Moreover, it is critically important to recognize that there
remains significant unmet funding need for schools to replace out-dated
equipment and help schools meet our new, updated standards for school
meals. These standards represent the first update to school meals in
over 15 years, emphasizing fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.
Schools need modern, appropriate equipment to help them serve healthy
meals. Only about 22 percent of the school districts who requested ARRA
funds received them. So, the present $35 million request for the School
Meals Equipment Grants is critical to providing support to help fund
equipment purchases for school districts that did not receive Recovery
Act funding.
Question. How do you envision these grants being allocated?
Answer. FNS would award equipment assistance funding to State
agencies using a competitive process, and the State agencies would then
build on the Recovery Act of 2009 criteria, which targeted low-income
districts with the greatest need. When developing the specific
competitive grant process that States would use when awarding these
grants to school districts, FNS would also consider how to best meet
the needs of school districts as per the requirements associated with
the $35 million school meals equipment grant funding request.
Question. What changes to your grant process will be made in
response to OIG's recommendations and concerns?
Answer. FNS will use management evaluations and/or targeted reviews
to determine State agency compliance with the grant application and
award processes. As part of these reviews, if FNS reviewers determine
that (1) exceptions to the grant application were made during grant
execution; and (2) potential grant awards to the State are pending, FNS
will develop appropriate corrective action plans which could include
submission of documentation for selected future grant awards to FNS for
review and approval prior to implementation. This documentation may
include applications (RFAs) and grant award evaluation processes prior
to the States releasing the applications to potential subgrantees.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Question. Can you explain to the subcommittee the status of the
women farmers discrimination litigation against USDA, along with the
status of the USDA's plans for a Women and Hispanic Farmers Claims
Process?
Answer. I will provide an update of the civil rights discrimination
litigation as well as USDA's plans for a Women and Hispanic Farmers
Claims Process.
[The information follows:]
In 2006, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of
class certification of plaintiffs' ECOA claims. Love v. Vilsack, 439
F.3d 723 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In 2009, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the claims plaintiffs brought under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. sections 701-706, by
female farmers in Love v. Vilsack, and remanded the cases to the
district court on the named plaintiffs' individual claims under ECOA.
Garcia v. Vilsack, 563 F.3d 519 (D.C. Cir. 2009). In January 2010, the
Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petitions for certiorari on the APA
claims in Love and Garcia. 130 S. Ct. 1138 (Mem.) (2010). All appeals
related to class certification have been decided in favor of USDA and
the Love case is now limited to individual claims of credit
discrimination. Love has been stayed while the voluntary Alternative
Dispute Resolution claims process is being finalized by USDA.
In order to offer relief to female and Hispanic farmers who allege
credit discrimination during the relevant statutory period, USDA
developed an entirely voluntary ADR program to settle those claims
without litigating them individually in court. This non-adversarial
process will be administered by a third-party neutral, who will make
individualized determinations based on the evidence presented by each
claimant. Successful claimants will receive up to $50,000 or $250,000
each depending on the tier of relief chosen by the claimant, plus tax
relief on their award and possible debt cancellation for certain
outstanding farm loans. Whether any individual chooses to participate
in the program is entirely up to the individual. Those farmers who wish
to ignore the ADR process are free to do so.
The claims process has not yet started. On January 25, 2012, after
hearing from members of Congress, community organizations, and farmers,
the Department announced changes to the claims process framework. In
May, USDA selected an independent Administrator/Adjudicator who is now
preparing to implement the claims process. Claimants will not need to
pay any filing fees to participate in the claims process.
Question. What is the USDA's outreach plan to spread the word to
women farmers nationwide about the availability of the claims process?
Who will conduct the outreach, what forms of outreach will be used, and
how much money does the agency plan to spend on outreach? Is the Agency
involving women's and farmers' groups in the development of the
outreach plan?
Answer. USDA has engaged in outreach activities to inform potential
claimants, including women farmers who have alleged past
discrimination, about the claims process. As part of the outreach
process, USDA has held numerous meetings and webinars with farmers and
community organizations, including women's organizations. USDA will
expend up to $75,000 for outreach inclusive of staff travel and meeting
space incidentals. In addition, USDA announced the claims process
(including recent changes) through press releases and media interviews;
and created a dedicated Web site with informational documents about the
process such as a fact sheet and summary notice. USDA currently
operates a toll-free call center to register individuals interested in
participating in the process, allowing them to request a claims
package.
USDA plans to continue to notify women and Hispanic farmers who
allege past discrimination against USDA about the claims process
requirements and the date on which the claims period will commence.
Ongoing outreach to potential claimants will be conducted in a number
of ways. USDA will use media to contact as many women and Hispanic
farmers as possible about the claims process, including social media,
press releases, Web sites, and posters, and USDA will hold additional
webinars summarizing the program to stakeholders. USDA also plans to
mail postcards directly to over 500,000 women and Hispanic farmers
listed in USDA customer information systems about the claims process,
plans to continue to hold meetings with farmers to notify them about
the program, and plans to work with third-party organizations to reach
out to potential claimants. Finally, USDA plans to enter into
cooperative agreements with third-party organizations to educate
potential claimants about the process.
Question. What, if any, specific program reforms is USDA
implementing to prevent future discrimination against women farmers in
particular?
Answer. To prevent future discrimination against women farmers,
USDA has strengthened training, outreach, and policy efforts. At my
direction, every political appointee in the Department has attended
civil rights trainings and USDA has offered civil rights training to
Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Rural
Development leadership and staff at State offices in more than a dozen
select States that have a history of problems in this area. The States
included Oklahoma and Arkansas, two of the States with the highest
concentrations of female producers. The States selected for civil
rights training for the Farm Service Agency State leadership accounted
for a total of 40 percent of FSA program complaints in fiscal year
2008, and the States selected for Rural Development trainings
represented 42 percent of RD program complaints in the same period.
We commissioned an independent assessment of civil rights in USDA's
program delivery. We are working to implement the recommendations of
this Cultural Transformation Assessment to help USDA improve field-
based service delivery to minority and women farmers and ranchers, and
communities that have historically not participated in USDA programs.
The recommendations for the Farm Service Agency in the assessment
included steps to provide better representation of women and minority
farmers on county committees, to take prompt action to hold employees
accountable for discrimination, and to institute outreach as a core
mission of the Agency. To improve USDA programs' ability to serve all
farmers, we analyzed the potential for new policies, rules and
decisions to impact civil rights. Over 3 years the Office of Civil
Rights recommended important changes on about 20 percent of all
policies they reviewed. We also more than doubled the number of
internal compliance reviews of USDA agencies to evaluate their civil
rights policies, procedures and practices.
USDA is committed to reaching out to women farmers and involving
new generations of female farmers in local and State USDA committees.
The Farm Service Agency also recently designed a customer's guide to
improve all producers' knowledge of farm loan programs.
In 2010 and again in 2011, USDA's FSA recorded the fewest number of
customer civil rights complaints since the Department began keeping
track, 37 complaints were filed in 2010 and 37 in 2011. We have also
made changes to improve the processing of the complaints we do receive.
Adding staff and conducting Lean Six Sigma process improvement have
reduced the typical processing time for new civil rights program
complaints from 4 years to 18 months.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
DIVERSITY OF RURAL ELECTRIC PROGRAMS
Question. The budget request for the Rural Utilities Service
electric loan program provides specific set-asides for renewable energy
plants and fossil fuel powered facilities that include carbon emissions
reduction. As a result, the budget request puts traditional power
plants sourced by fossil fuels, such as natural gas and coal, at a
disadvantage in participating in the program.
While I appreciate the importance of renewable energy and carbon
sequestration, Americans in rural areas rely on cheap, accessible
electricity that demands a diversification of energy sources for
affordable customer rates. Energy policy should have a balanced
approach and not focus on one particular source.
Does USDA know the potential long-term economic effects if rural
electric cooperatives are unable to utilize the loan program to
construct natural gas and coal-fired power plants or to provide basic
facility upgrades that do not specifically reduce emissions?
Answer. USDA has not calculated the long-term economic effects of
limiting future investment in fossil fuel-fired power plants. However,
by virtue of being located in rural America, the rural electric
cooperatives are ideally situated to invest in many renewable energy
technologies such as solar and wind power. By targeting future
assistance to renewable fuel technologies the rural electric
cooperatives have the opportunity to play a central role in this
administration's ``all-of-the-above'' approach to energy independence.
Question. How will the recent EPA announcement on greenhouse gas
emission limits affect participation in the electric loan program?
Answer. The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is expecting an increase
in demand for RUS loan funds as borrowers work to comply with the EPA
greenhouse gas emissions limits. At this point in time, RUS does not
know the amount needed for borrowers to comply with EPA. However, the
estimates for environmental upgrades range from $1 billion this fiscal
year and reaching approximately $3.5 billion by 2016 according to the
Electric Program application pipeline and the National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association's 10-year projections.
Question. Because the average natural gas powered electric plant
has a CO2 emissions level below the recently announced EPA
guidelines, what is the reasoning for prohibiting their access to two-
thirds of the funding in the rural electric program unless they include
carbon capture sequestration systems?
Answer. This limitation is one of many ways to achieve energy
independence and improve the environmental health of the Nation. The
proposal does not preclude the ability of rural electric cooperatives
from seeking other sources of financing to build or upgrade fossil
fuel-fired power plants. Rather, it provides an opportunity for the
rural electric cooperatives to be at the forefront of implementing
renewable energy strategies that will power a greener tomorrow.
FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS WITH COLOMBIA AND PANAMA
Question. Last year, Congress approved the trade agreements with
South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. Implementation of all three of the
trade agreements will increase U.S. farm exports by an additional $2.3
billion--supporting nearly 20,000 American jobs.
The agreement with South Korea came into force earlier this month
(March 15). However, the agreements with Colombia and Panama have not
been fully implemented. Full implementation of these two agreements
would increase farm exports by $400 million and support approximately
4,000 jobs. It is important that these agreements are implemented
expeditiously to open up these markets for our agriculture producers.
What is the current status of the free trade agreements with
Colombia and Panama?
Answer. The United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement will
enter into force on May 15, 2012. The Department of Agriculture's
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) worked closely with the Office of
the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and stakeholders to establish
effective mechanisms for ensuring market access under the terms of the
agreement, particularly for tariff-rate quotas (TRQs). A range of
issues will be resolved prior to implementation, including barriers to
U.S. poultry and rice. Almost 70 percent U.S. exports to Colombia will
become duty-free upon implementation, and most other tariffs will be
reduced and eliminated over 5 to 10 years, with all Colombian tariffs
on agricultural products duty-free in 19 years.
With respect to the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement,
discussions with Panama are currently focused on changes required in
their laws and regulations in order to implement the agreement. FAS is
working closely with USTR to ensure the mechanisms Panama will use to
implement its agricultural TRQs will be ready when the agreement enters
into force. Panama will be adapting its current auction system for some
TRQs and establishing new licensing and first-come, first-served
systems for others. FAS and USTR are working to ensure that these
systems will be implemented in a way that is consistent with the
provisions of the agreement and that will enable U.S. exporters to take
full advantage of new opportunities.
Question. Is there an estimated date for implementation of these
agreements?
Answer. The United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement will
enter into force on May 15, 2012. An implementation date for the United
States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement will be set once agreement has
been reached on all of the implementation mechanisms. FAS is working
with USTR to ensure the new market access opportunities established in
the agreement will be available as soon as the agreement enters into
force. In an effort to ensure the implementation of the agreement moves
forward expeditiously, a team of FAS, USTR, and Customs officials will
travel to Panama in the first week of May to assist the Panamanian
Government as it develops its TRQ regulations.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE LAB CLOSURES
Question. Consistent with the budget request, the fiscal year 2012
agriculture bill closed 12 Agricultural Research Service (ARS) labs.
However, the budget request did not adequately budget for the expense
of closing these labs, which turned out to be far more significant than
either USDA or the subcommittee imagined.
How much do you estimate it will ultimately cost ARS to relocate
staff and close all 12 labs in fiscal year 2012?
Answer. The termination of research activities at the 12 ARS
laboratories affected 233 permanent ARS employees. The one-time costs
associated with the relocation or separation of affected personnel and
the disposal of property are estimated at $39 million in fiscal year
2012.
EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH
Question. I understand ARS plans to reduce existing extramural
research funding by 30 percent this year to find the additional funds
necessary to close the labs.
How did ARS arrive at the decision to reduce extramural funding as
opposed to other activities within ARS?
Answer. The temporary budget reductions to remaining ARS programs
in fiscal year 2012 are necessary to finance the one-time costs
associated with the closure of 12 ARS laboratories. The 30-percent
reduction to extramural research supported by ARS resources is one of
several measures necessary to finance the one-time costs. These
measures also include restricted hiring and assessing all remaining ARS
management units. As a result of these actions, only about half of the
one-time costs to close the 12 laboratories will be financed by
reductions to extramural supported research. Although ARS' mission is
to conduct primarily intramural research, ARS along with other USDA
agencies, such as the National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA), will continue to support high-priority extramural research.
CAPITAL ASSET AND CONSTRUCTION PLAN
Question. The fiscal year 2013 budget includes a proposal to close
six more labs.
Last year, the subcommittee requested a capital assets and
construction plan from ARS. We have not received the capital asset
plan. Without the benefit of this plan, how did USDA determine which
labs would be closed?
Answer. ARS has completed a capital investment strategy for
recapitalization and new research facilities based on facility
condition, needs, and research program priorities. The report
establishes criteria and processes for determining and recommending the
appropriate level of new investments needed for USDA research
facilities. The report's recommendations and overall strategy will
inform and support the development of administration budget requests
for research facilities in the out years.
During the process of evaluating all ARS research programs, and in
conjunction with developing the capital investment strategy, ARS also
developed a conceptual framework to determine its capital investment
needs based on the relation between the condition of a facility to the
priority level of a program. This methodology allowed ARS to determine,
on a scale, which facilities are in the poorest conditions and housed
the lowest priority programs. The six laboratories recommended for
closure were identified after all evaluations were completed. The 2013
budget proposes reallocating these funds to facilities/programs that
support higher priority initiatives.
CLOSING COSTS OF RESEARCH LABORATORIES
Question. Should the subcommittee agree with ARS's plan to close
the labs, does the budget request adequately account for the cost of
closing these labs?
Answer. The estimated cost to accommodate the potentially impacted
employees and dispose of the real property ranges from $10-12 million.
If the fiscal year 2013 proposed budget reallocations are approved, ARS
would be able to utilize the associated program funds to offset the
facility closure costs.
BUDGET IMPACT OF SCHOOL MEALS REGULATIONS
Question. I have received a number of inquiries from schools across
Missouri regarding the Department's new school meal regulations. I am
deeply concerned about the unintended costs on public schools as a
result of the Department's regulations.
With the price of food commodities rising, it looks like the impact
of the regulations will result in an unfunded Federal mandate on
Missouri schools. My constituents have said that the fruit, vegetable,
and whole grain requirements will increase the cost of a school lunch
by as much as $0.28 per meal. The increase in funding provided in the
reauthorization is set at $0.06 per lunch, significantly less than the
estimated actual cost of implementation.
These cost increases will be borne by local school districts, which
will likely be forced to increase prices on paid lunches, resulting in
a reduction in overall participation rates.
How does the Department plan to deal with rising food commodity
costs?
Answer. Beginning October 2012, school food authorities that meet
the new meal patterns will receive a $0.06 lunch reimbursement rate
increase authorized by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
(HHFKA). Furthermore, the HHFKA requires that schools set an adequate
price for paid lunches so that schools receive as much revenue from
paid lunches as the Federal program provides for free lunches. The
HHFKA also requires that schools set competitive prices for foods sold
outside of the reimbursable meal so that revenues received from the
sale of nonprogram foods equal the cost of obtaining them. When taken
together, the additional Federal reimbursement provided for improved
meals and the non-Federal revenue generated by the aforementioned
provisions will, on average, make sufficient resources available for
schools to meet the new meal requirements. Also, it is important to
note that over 3,000 schools receiving the HealthierUS School Challenge
(HUSSC) awards report they have been able to achieve similar standards
without significant cost increases. To date, 61 Missouri schools have
been recognized as HUSSC award winners, including 12 schools that were
recognized at the Silver level.
In addition, one key way that USDA helps schools provide cost-
effective, nutritious meals is by providing agricultural commodities in
the form of USDA Foods. The USDA Foods program helps schools stretch
limited food budgets by providing high-quality fruits, vegetables,
meat, fish, poultry, dairy, and grains. School commodities, which
represent approximately 15-20 percent of the food on the cafeteria
serving line, now include more fruits and vegetables, more whole
grains, and more food that is lower in sugar, salt, and fat than ever
before. For example, USDA purchased nearly $300 million in canned,
fresh, frozen, and dried fruits and vegetables for schools through the
USDA Foods program and the Department of Defense (DOD) Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Program in fiscal year 2011. The USDA Foods program is well
positioned to help schools meet the new meal requirements and we are
confident that most of the schools will continue to benefit from this
program.
Question. Does the Department have a plan for dealing with
increased costs and the burdens these costs will place on public
schools?
Answer. Careful consideration of cost and logistical issues were an
important part of developing the updated nutrition standards for the
school meals programs. USDA is committed to ensuring that any such
standards are practical and accompanied by extensive guidance and
implementation assistance for our school partners. As part of the
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, USDA built the new rule around
recommendations from an Institute of Medicine expert panel, updated
with key changes from the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Getting the science right is critical to better nutrition and health
for our children.
We received unprecedented public participation and input on the
proposed standards, and made modifications to the proposed rule where
appropriate. As a result, the final standards are much less costly than
the proposed standards, provide additional time for implementation of
some key changes, and better accommodate the administrative constraints
facing schools and States. These responsible reforms do what is right
for children's health in a way that is practical and achievable in
schools across the Nation. USDA's estimate shows implementation of the
new nutrition standards for school lunches and breakfasts will cost
$3.2 billion over the next 5 years. This is less than half of the
proposed standards' originally estimated cost of $6.8 billion.
In addition, we believe the $0.06 lunch reimbursement rate increase
authorized by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 along with the
revenue support provisions noted in the previous response such as the
non-Federal revenue generated by schools setting an adequate price for
paid lunches so that schools receive as much revenue from paid lunches
as the Federal program provides for free lunches and the requirement
that schools set competitive prices for foods sold outside of the
reimbursable meal so that revenues received from the sale of nonprogram
foods equal the cost of obtaining them, will make sufficient resources
available for schools to meet the new meal requirements. Finally, we
are working on technical assistance and menu planning materials to help
schools plan and prepare nutritious meals in a cost-effective manner,
and will make those materials available as soon as they are complete.
BUDGET IMPACT OF COMPETITIVE STANDARDS RULE
Question. It's clear from speaking to many of the schools in
Missouri that they depend on revenue from foods sold outside of the
National School Lunch & Breakfast Programs to give them greater ability
to purchase healthier options for school meals.
There is a lot of anxiety in the school foodservice community over
how new competitive foods' standards will impact this revenue stream,
particularly at a time when school cafeterias are being asked to cut
their budgets.
I understand that the Department believes schools should expect
increased revenue from competitive foods lines as a result of the new
standards.
What data you are basing this assumption on?
Answer. The Department projected increased revenue from competitive
foods as a result of regulations implementing section 206 of the
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA). The rule, published in
the Federal Register on June 17, 2011 (76 FR 35301), requires school
food authorities (SFAs) to set prices for nonprogram foods purchased
with SFA funds, a subset of competitive foods, at a level sufficient to
generate revenue proportionate to their share of SFA food costs. The
Department estimated that HHFKA section 206 would generate $7.3 billion
in additional SFA revenue over 5 years. The primary source for that
estimate was USDA's school year 2005-2006 School Lunch and Breakfast
Cost Study. That study found that nonprogram foods generated revenue
for SFAs equal to just 71.3 percent of their reported costs of
production. Counter to common perception, on average, the revenue
generated by program meals subsidizes the production of other SFA foods
when labor and overhead costs are properly allocated to all foods
prepared with SFA funds.
Elimination of that subsidy is the source of the revenue generated
by HHFKA section 206--not nutrition standards for competitive foods,
which are still under development. Whatever the ultimate impact of
those nutrition standards on competitive food sales, section 206
ensures that competitive foods will not divert revenue from the
production of reimbursable meals. Reforming SFA accounts in this manner
frees up program revenue for the investments necessary to meet new meal
standards.
Question. Do you plan to perform any sort of assessment on impact
of the competitive foods standards on school cafeteria budgets?
Answer. Yes. The Department will begin data collection in school
year 2014-2015 for a ``School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study''. That
study will examine both the school nutrition environment and school
foodservice operations. The study will assess the impact of nutrition
standards on the content of reimbursable meals and competitive foods,
and will compare the revenues generated by each of these to their
allocated share of SFA costs.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
LEAN FINELY TEXTURED BEEF
Question. In the light of the large amount of press attention
recently given to a product called lean finely textured beef (LFTB), I
would like to clarify for the record some aspects of the situation. As
I understand it, the Department of Agriculture was informed and
reviewed the process and technology involved in producing lean finely
textured beef and did not raise problems with the process, nor did the
Department indicate a problem with including it in what is sold as
``ground beef'' without any special labeling. It is also my
understanding that the Food and Drug Administration allows the use of
ammonia in food under a designation of ``generally recognized as
safe.'' The factual circumstances seem to show that the company that
developed the process felt it was applying an innovative technology and
addressing food safety risks in doing so, again, with the knowledge of
and effectively an OK from the Department of Agriculture. Now the
company has suspended operations at several plants and jobs of hundreds
of workers are in doubt.
My question is simply, does lean finely textured beef meet the
applicable food safety standards and criteria of the Department of
Agriculture?
Answer. Yes, lean finely textured beef (LFTB) products meet Federal
food safety standards. The process used to produce LFTB is safe, and
adding LFTB to ground beef does not make that ground beef any less safe
to consume.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
FOOD SAFETY
Question. I understand that the Department of Agriculture (the
Department) has announced that it is preparing to propose new
regulations for the grinding of raw beef that would require additional
recordkeeping to help the Department trace outbreaks back to their
source. It has been reported that these new regulations, which have not
yet been published, would require retail stores to keep detailed
records identifying the supplier and the quantities of all source
materials used in raw ground beef products. The Department has long
encouraged retail stores to keep such detailed records, but has not
required them to do so. The Department has indicated that it considers
the use of beef trimmings without detailed recordkeeping as a ``high-
risk'' practice.
What additional actions is the Department taking or proposing to
take to improve its ability to prevent foods containing dangerous
pathogens from ever leaving the slaughterhouse, processing facility, or
entering the retail chain?
Answer. FSIS announced and asked for comment on a new ``test and
hold'' requirement for the meat and poultry industry that, once
implemented, will significantly reduce consumer exposure to unsafe
food. When the policy is finalized, industry will be required to hold
products that FSIS has sampled for microbiological testing until the
test results are received. The product will be released if the results
show that it is safe to move in commerce. This approach could have
prevented 22 recalls during fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010.
Under this policy, FSIS expects fewer recalls by industry, fewer
illnesses, and increased consumer confidence in the safety of the food
supply. The agency is also announcing new procedures for tracing
product that is positive for E. coli O157 to its supplier as well as
actions that will strengthen its implementation of HACCP.
Question. What steps is the Department taking to educate consumers
about the risks of food-borne illness, the dangers and avoidance of
cross contamination, and the need to handle and cook meat properly to
ensure it is safe for consumption?
Answer. On June 28, 2011, FSIS launched a joint national multimedia
campaign with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to help
families prevent food poisoning: The Food Safe Families--Check Your
Steps campaign. The campaign urges consumers to remember four key steps
to food safety: Clean (surfaces, utensils, and hands), separate (raw
meat and poultry from other foods), cook (to a safe temperature), and
chill (raw and prepared food). We have reached millions, in English and
Spanish, using a variety of donated media, including television, radio,
print media, social media tools, and the Internet.
On May 5, 2011, FSIS launched the Mobile Ask Karen application
(m.AskKaren.gov on your phone's mobile browser), a Web-based smartphone
application that gives consumers another way to access the only U.S.
Government-sponsored food safety virtual-representative. Consumers can
search by topic and products, send e-mails, or use the chat feature,
all via their mobile devices. Thus, users can get answers to their food
safety questions anywhere: At the grocery store, barbecue grill, and
kitchen stovetop.
During fiscal year 2011, the USDA Food Safety Discovery Zone, a new
and improved USDA Food Safety Mobile, visited grocery stores, schools,
and local community events to educate consumers about food safety and
to promote the Food Safe Families Campaign. The Discovery Zone improves
consumers' awareness of the risks associated with mishandling food and
provides in-depth, hands-on demonstrations of the steps they can take
to reduce their risk of contracting a foodborne illness.
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM
Question. Recently the Department purchased for use in the National
School Lunch Program a product that is commonly referred to as ``pink
slime,'' known in the industry as ``boneless lean beef trimmings'' or
``lean finely textured beef,'' as an additive in ground beef. This
product is reportedly treated with ammonium hydroxide gas, suggesting
that decontamination is necessary to ensure the product is safe to eat.
What analysis has the Department done to determine whether this product
is safe for consumption?
Answer. Ammonium hydroxide is used in the production of lean finely
textured beef (LFTB) as a pH control agent to help reduce harmful
bacteria. Ammonium hydroxide, produced by mixing anhydrous ammonia
(ammonia gas) with the natural moisture in LFTB, was determined to be
Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) in 1974, after extensive review and a rulemaking process (21 CFR
184.1139). USDA, after consultation with FDA, determined that ammonium
hydroxide is safe and suitable for use in the production of meat and
poultry products (FSIS Directive 7,120.1).
Question. Have there been incidents of food-borne contamination in
products containing pink slime?
Answer. Some ammoniated beef has been shown to be contaminated with
E. coli O157:H7, and such product has been excluded or removed from
commerce under the same procedures FSIS employs for any product it
regulates.
Question. Parents in Maine have contacted school districts to
inquire about the safety and wholesomeness of products containing this
additive. Are there any health implications, particularly for school-
age children, associated with consuming foods that have been treated
with ammonium hydroxide?
Answer. No. Ammonium hydroxide is accepted as GRAS for this use.
Question. Does the Department plan to undertake any additional
studies or actions to ensure that these products are safe for
consumption by the public and by our Nation's school children?
Answer. No. No evidence has been presented or cited that would
raise a question about the GRAS status of this use of ammonium
hydroxide. However, based on requests from school districts across the
country, USDA announced on March 15 that it would offer more choices in
the National School Lunch Program in terms of purchases of ground beef
products.
LEAN FINELY TEXTURED BEEF
Question. I understand that the Department has recently announced
it will give schools the choice of using products that do not contain
pink slime.
What will the Department do with unwanted product that contains
this additive that, in some cases, has already been delivered to school
districts?
Answer. On March 30, a policy memo was sent to State distributing
agencies (SDAs) and school food authorities (SFAs) that not only
reaffirmed the safety of lean finely textured beef (LFTB) but also
outlined the options available for the treatment of their current
inventories if recipients chose not to utilize the product as intended.
USDA does strongly encourage all SDAs and SFAs that have ordered
donated beef products to use them as intended but understands the
desires of certain recipient Agencies not to do so. However, USDA
cannot provide entitlement credit or reimbursement for any processing-
related fees or replacement product. If the SFA does not wish to use
donated beef products that contain LFTB, the SDA must determine if the
donated products can be reallocated to another SFA that is willing to
use them. If donated beef products in SDA inventories cannot be
reallocated to another SFA, the SDA must determine if they can be
transferred to another SDA for distribution to SFAs in the National
School Lunch Program, or if such foods can be transferred for use in
the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), or another eligible
charitable institution. SDAs will be responsible for any transportation
costs, and there will be no compensation to an SDA or SFA for lost
entitlements.
USDA continues to affirm the safety of LFTB products. However, the
Department was overwhelmed with inquiries from schools and parents who
did not want it to be allowed as a component in the ground beef that
USDA purchases. The schools are our customers and they were demanding
choices. The decision was driven by customer demand.
Question. What is the estimated cost to the Department and to
schools of choosing not to use products containing this additive?
Answer. AMS estimates that the cost of beef products that do not
allow for the inclusion of LFTB could run 3 percent higher than the
comparable LFTB-allowing beef product specifications. Depending on
whether a school food authority is ordering donated products or using
non-entitlement funds, selecting this option could either result in
them receiving a smaller volume of products or a higher cost. USDA does
not expect there to be any increased direct costs to the Department
from providing the option.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE PROGRAM REALLOCATION
Question. In fiscal year 2012, and in the 10 previous fiscal years,
ARS and the potato industry, through a potato research initiative, have
cooperated to identify research projects that have scientific merit and
address potato industry priorities. ARS researchers serve as the lead
investigators on all projects and collaborate with land grant
universities and other private entities to conduct this research.
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request proposes to
reallocate $4.6 million to improve the control of diseases attacking
small fruits, nursery crops, potatoes, and other crops, through the
development of resistant varieties and disease management strategies.
Preventing the damaging effects of pests and diseases requires the
consistent application of sound pest management strategies, including
the development of disease- and pest-resistant crop varieties. These
strategies are the result of years of collaborative efforts among ARS,
research institutions, private industry, and local producers that have
resulted in better pest management, reduced environmental impact,
improved quality, and increased yield. Can you explain how the
Department's proposed reallocation will affect these partnerships? Is
USDA committed to providing adequate funding for pest and disease
management programs, including the development of pest and disease-
resistant varieties through ARS that address the potato industry's
identified research priorities?
How does the Department intend to fund and administer these
programs, and what resources will USDA commit to these programs to
ensure they are able to address evolving pest and disease management
challenges facing producers?
Answer. USDA will maintain its strong partnerships with its
cooperators, customers, and stakeholders, including agricultural
producers and universities. These close working relationships are an
integral part of plant breeding and pathology research programs
nationwide, and the Department will use its dedicated resources to
continue these partnerships that address producer priorities in plant
production and protection.
Public plant breeding programs are crucial in meeting needs
identified by the potato and other industries. Development of improved
germplasm and varieties, as needed, with enhanced disease and pest
protection is a high-priority research initiative within the
Department.
USDA research will continue to address producer needs for plant
health and sustainability. Research priorities will continue to be
established through a continuing dialogue with customers and
stakeholders.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CROP PROTECTION PROGRAM
Question. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget proposes to
consolidate several pest management programs into a single ``Crop
Protection'' program and to provide $29.1 million for that program in
the next fiscal year. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs allow
research universities to partner with State, local, and regional
producers to conduct critical field work and research, perform field
inspections, and provide producer notifications. These steps are
critical to converting laboratory research into improved pest and
disease management strategies that can be applied in the field to
reduce pesticide application and improve crop quality and yield.
Please describe how the Department intends to administer these
important programs should such a consolidation occur. How would the
proposed consolidation affect ongoing partnerships with States and
research universities to transfer laboratory research to the field? How
much of the $29.1 million that is requested would go to fund IPM
programs, and specifically, potato IPM programs? How much of the
requested funding under this proposed consolidation would go to Minor
Crop Pest Management (IR-4) program efforts?
Answer. USDA is currently soliciting broad stakeholder input on the
appropriate design of the Crop Protection Program in anticipation of
funding in fiscal year 2013. Our goal is to improve the efficiency of
the program and enhance NIFA's ability to support research, education,
and extension activities needed to assist in global food security and
respond to other major societal challenges.
[Additional information is provided below.]
The President's budget for fiscal year 2013 proposed the
consolidation of six pest management budget lines into the Crop
Protection Program. The budget proposal identifies five priority areas
that will be supported by the new program:
--The development of crop protection tactics and tools;
--The development of diversified IPM systems;
--Enhancing agricultural biosecurity;
--Developing IPM for a sustainable society; and
--Developing the next generation of IPM scientists.
These priority areas encompass core research, extension and service
activities supported by the six budget lines that will be consolidated.
As we implement the new program, we will try to minimize disruption to
ongoing efforts that are currently supported by the six budget lines,
which includes the IR-4 program. We value the partnerships that have
developed as a result of the Department's involvement with these pest
management efforts over the past 50 years, and we remain committed to
supporting critical research, extension and service efforts in fiscal
year 2013 and beyond. We believe that the proposed budget consolidation
and creation of the Crop Protection Program will strengthen these
partnerships, and will result in the most effective and efficient use
of Federal funding appropriated to the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture for pest management efforts. Funding allocations for this
competitive program will be determined when 2013 funding is provided.
NORTHEAST REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
Question. One of the major strengths of American agriculture is the
wide variety of crops grown, and the ability of different geographic
regions to produce high-quality, often unique, agricultural products.
USDA research activities through the ARS play a key role in leveraging
departmental resources, academic expertise, and the input of regional
producers to improve quality and expand production of many crops. The
President's fiscal year 2013 budget proposes to close several ARS
laboratories, including the New England Plant, Soil, and Water Research
Center--the only ARS lab in the six-State New England Region that
conducts crop, soil, water, environmental, and economic research.
The closing of ARS labs represents a significant loss not only for
regional producers, but also for affiliated research universities that
will lose critical staff and resources. These losses can jeopardize the
ability of universities and industry to apply prior research and
develop better pest and disease management strategies. Moreover, the
closure of the only plant, soil, and water ARS laboratory in New
England hardens the impression that the Department does not view the
Northeast's agricultural sector as worthy of growth, improvement, or
investment. Does the Department believe it is important to maintain an
ARS laboratory research footprint in New England and other regions of
the country? Has the Department analyzed the potential economic impacts
of closing these labs on regional producers who may directly benefit
from the applied research that these labs can generate?
Answer. ARS is a national research institution; although many ARS
research laboratories address the needs of local producers, these
laboratories also often serve as model systems. Thus, research
conducted at many ARS locations yields benefits to producers in Maine
and elsewhere. USDA believes that there are significant benefits to
maintaining research facilities across the range of climatic, soil, and
cropping systems represented in the United States. Though the Orono
facility is proposed for closure, ARS is maintaining a comprehensive
set of research laboratories in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
West Virginia that continue to address the needs of producers in the
northeast. Agriculture in the United States is seldom extremely
location-specific. Although crops usually are particularly productive
in certain combinations of soils and climate, those conditions can
often be found at multiple locations. Taking advantage of the
differences across the country contributes to the important
characteristic of resilience leading to increased food security.
The Department has not undertaken a comprehensive economic analysis
of the impacts on regional producers from the proposed closures. Aside
from Orono, ARS conducts many research projects around the concept of
Agricultural Systems Competitiveness and Sustainability at research
locations in several States. In most instances, these projects address
complete cropping systems relevant to various production areas across
the country. For example, many research findings in sustainable potato
production systems in Washington and Oregon benefit producers in the
northeast. Although the research in those locations is by necessity
conducted on local crops and soils, the principles that are developed
are beneficial in a broad range of crops, soils, and climates.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jerry Moran
COMPETITIVE FOOD RULE
Question. Changes to the National School Lunch and Breakfast
Programs have imposed new challenges and costs on schools in Kansas and
across the country. While I am glad the implementation cost of the
final meal pattern rule is lower than what was initially proposed, I am
concerned about what the cost may be of the competitive foods rule USDA
is currently working on. What assurances can you give me and school
nutritionists in Kansas who are already having difficulty planning
menus for next year that the forthcoming rule on competitive foods will
not impose costs and compliance hurdles similar to those that were
proposed in the initial meal pattern rule?
Answer. As you are aware, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA)
requires that the USDA develop nutrition standards for foods sold in
schools outside the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School
Breakfast Program (SBP). It also requires they be consistent with the
most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans and take a number of
important issues into consideration, including the practical
application of the nutrition standards in schools. A proposed rule to
establish such standards is currently under development.
We are aware that school districts have concerns regarding the
potential financial and logistical impacts associated with the
implementation of these standards and have received extensive input
from a variety of stakeholders on how to best address those concerns.
As we continue our work to develop the proposed rule, a great deal of
time has been spent analyzing current scientific information and school
practices as well as voluntary standards for food sold outside of the
NSLP and SBP that have been recommended by a number of nongovernmental
organizations. We have also considered the costs associated with
implementation of such standards for all foods sold to students in
school. I am committed to ensuring that any such standards are
practical and accompanied by extensive guidance and assistance for our
school partners as implementation moves forward. In addition, I
understand the need to aim for consistency with the NSLP meal pattern
regulation in areas in which the regulations may overlap, particularly
as a means to ensure the regulations do not place undue burden or
complexity on school staff who operate food service under both
standards. We look forward to receiving public comments once the
proposal is published and want to assure you that such comments will be
most carefully considered as we develop the final rule.
Question. Last year, in the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act (Public Law 112-55), Congress expressed concern
about sodium reduction targets specified in the proposed meal pattern
rule. Is the Department taking these concerns about aggressive sodium
reduction targets into account as it finalizes its proposed rule for
competitive foods?
Answer. We understand the complexity of balancing ambitious
approaches to improving the food intake of children with the needs of
program operators and look forward to receiving public comments once
the competitive foods proposal is published. I want to assure you that
such comments will be carefully considered as we develop the final
rule. We continue to be committed to ensuring a careful review of
current science and technologies before implementing the ambitious, but
important, sodium reduction targets included in the school meal
patterns final rule and will apply these considerations to our work on
competitive foods.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
OFFICE CLOSURES
Question. Let me first thank you for your February 13, 2012,
response to the letter I sent with Senator Thune and Representative
Noem concerning your January 9, 2012, announcement to close 259 USDA
offices, facilities, and laboratories across the country, including
four FSA offices in my home State of South Dakota. At the same time, I
was disappointed that several of our questions were not addressed in
your response. I recognize, as you have stated publicly multiple times,
that the Department has been faced with difficult choices given reduced
budgets, and that you faced a choice of either closing offices or
instituting furloughs. The situation in which you find yourself is
certainly unfortunate; the rush to cut Federal spending by some in
Congress without regard for the impact has begun to show the
consequences.
Recognizing these difficult circumstances, I would like to get a
better idea of how you identified offices for closure. The 2008 farm
bill directed you to use a specific set of criteria. Specifically, my
constituents would appreciate a better understanding of why the
Department utilized ``as the crow flies'' rather than driving miles for
determining the mileage between offices; this has been of significant
concern for my constituents, because in multiple cases, the distance
between offices in question is actually greater than 20 miles. As we
stated in our letter, the Department utilizes miles driven when
determining mileage for official Government travel with motor vehicles;
particularly given the unique geographical characteristics of some of
the affected offices, why did the Department utilize the ``as the crow
flies'' standard?
Answer. USDA selected Euclidian miles because it represents a
precise distance between two points which is not subject to
interpretation.
Question. Additionally, some of the offices slated for closure,
though minimally staffed at the time the decisions were made, have
still had a significant workload. As we stated in our letter, using the
actual number of employees in the office at any given time is an
unreliable and inconsistent staffing measure as this number can vary
greatly due to retirements and transfers. Why did the Department use
the actual number of employees for determining whether county offices
met this statutory guideline?
Answer. USDA used the number of staff currently employed in each
office in order to strictly adhere to the criteria laid out in the 2008
farm bill.
HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTION
Question. Can you outline what the impact will be of the budget
resolution recently passed in the House of Representatives, if enacted
on your ability to operate in the future, and in particular, the degree
to which you may need to consider additional office closures?
Answer. The President's budget request was fiscally responsible and
included reductions in many discretionary programs. For any further
reductions beyond the President's budget we would need to further
review our priorities and make appropriate adjustments.
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING
Question. Thank you for your continued efforts in defending our
country-of-origin labeling (COOL) program. As you know, I've worked on
this issue for many years, and I am pleased that USDA, under your
leadership, has finally implemented the program. Additionally, I am
very pleased that the administration will be appealing the World Trade
Organization Dispute Settlement Panel's decision concerning our COOL
program. Can you provide a general timeframe for the appeals process
moving forward and the role that USDA will play in the process?
Answer. The parties to the dispute have already filed all their
submissions in the appeal. The WTO Appellate Body will hold the hearing
in this appeal on May 2-3, 2012. A final decision is expected sometime
during the summer of 2012. USDA's COOL team of regulators, economists,
trade policy experts and lawyers has been working closely with United
States Trade Representative's litigation team throughout this dispute,
both at the Panel stage and at the appellate stage.
SUN GRANT INITIATIVE
Question. As you know, the Sun Grant Initiative is an important
university research and education program that addresses national
priorities to develop bioenergy and bioproducts at regional and local
levels. The initiative broadens the role of land-grant universities to
conduct research and educational programs that emphasize renewable
energy systems based on agriculture and renewable resources.
Particularly given the administration's emphasis on the importance of
the development of renewable energy, why does the administration's
budget propose zero funding for this nationally authorized program?
Answer. A decrease is proposed so funding can be redirected to
support higher priority activities, and is consistent with the
administration's policy to redirect available resources, as
appropriate, and consistent with the agency mission, from lower
priority areas to other science and technology activities. Alternative
funding from the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative and/or
formula funding may be used to support aspects of the program deemed to
be of priority at State and/or local levels. For example, the 2013
budget proposes reallocating funding within AFRI towards bio-based
energy technologies, increasing funding towards this initiative by $30
million.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark L. Pryor
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2012 FUNDING
Question. It's my understanding that USDA's fiscal year 2012 budget
request for Agricultural Research Service (ARS) underestimated the
funding needed to close the 12 ARS laboratories that were proposed for
closure in fiscal year 2012. As a result I see that ARS has taken
action to find the needed $38 million elsewhere in the budget. I note
three things happened to make up this shortfall:
--All ARS programs were cut an estimated 0.7 percent;
--ARS has frozen all vacancies; and
--ARS has proposed to reduce all extramural activities by 30 percent.
Do these three rounds of cuts fully make up for the budgeting
error?
Answer. I do not believe this was a budgeting error. ARS' fiscal
year 2012 enacted level was $43 million below what was proposed in the
fiscal year 2012 President's budget and $38 million below the fiscal
year 2011 enacted. This permanent reduction eliminated ARS' ability to
offset the costs of the closures with program funds associated with
each of the 12 laboratories. The one-time costs associated with the
relocation or separation of affected personnel and the disposal of
property are estimated at $39 million in fiscal year 2012. These one-
time costs are being financed by temporary reductions to remaining ARS
research programs. The resources accumulated from the temporary
assessments will cover the one-time costs in fiscal year 2012.
Question. Why do these cuts, to make up for an ARS budgetary
mistake, target extramural activities?
Answer. I do not believe this was a budgetary mistake. The
permanent reduction of $38 million from fiscal year 2011 levels
required that all ARS research, not just sponsored extramural research,
needed to be reduced to pay for the closures. USDA sought to balance
the impact on intramural and extramural programs through an across-the-
board reduction of intramural research, a hiring freeze, and extramural
funding reduction. Together, these actions will finance the one-time
costs to ARS for the facility closures without closing other ARS
research projects and let ARS partners continue ARS extramural research
with 70 percent of the funding. USDA will also continue to support
high-priority extramural research through other USDA agencies, such as
the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).
Question. Why is the cut not across the board like the earlier 0.7-
percent across-the-board cut and the freeze on all ARS vacancies?
Answer. The approach to financing the one-time costs seeks to
minimize the impact to USDA personnel. Additional temporary reductions
to in-house research supported by ARS personnel would potentially
impact additional ARS employees and require significant reductions in
ARS intramural research.
Question. Was there a measured approach used to evaluate
productivity or performance?
Answer. To fund the one-time costs associated with closing the 12
laboratories, all of ARS research was reduced through an across-the-
board reduction of intramural research, a hiring freeze, and an
extramural funding reduction. This balanced approach to reductions did
not evaluate productivity or performance.
Question. Who made this decision to cut extramural facilities on
their expected fiscal year 2012 funds to cover the closure costs?
Answer. I made the decision to assess the funding for extramural-
supported research, as well as ongoing in-house programs, based on
recommendations from ARS and other staff.
Question. Is there an appeal process?
Answer. USDA has not established a process to appeal the temporary
reductions necessary to finance the one-time costs associated with
closing the 12 laboratories.
Question. What other sources of funding were under discussion to
help cover the unit closure budget shortfall?
Answer. The Department's ability to finance the one-time costs is
limited to the resources appropriated to conduct the agency's research
programs. All funds appropriated to ARS are used to support the
salaries of ARS personnel and other necessary expenses to conduct
research, including cooperative agreements with our extramural research
partners that contribute to specific ARS program objectives. Since
2010, the ARS Salaries and Expenses budget has been reduced by over 7
percent, while the need to invest in research continues to grow. Shared
sacrifice has to be made given limited resources.
DALE BUMPERS SMALL FARMS RESEARCH CENTER
Question. The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes a proposal
to effectively close the Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center in
Booneville, Arkansas, by redirecting all its funding elsewhere. I
obviously do not support this proposal. In light of the closure of
Brooksville, Florida, in 2011, and the expected closures of
Watkinsville, Georgia, and Beaver, West Virginia, by June 1, 2012,
where will ARS conduct grazing research for the benefit of the eastern
United States if it closes Booneville, too?
Answer. Grazing research for the Eastern United States is conducted
at ARS locations in University Park, Pennsylvania (Pasture Systems and
Watershed Management Research Unit); Lexington, Kentucky (Forage Animal
Production Research Unit); Madison, Wisconsin (U.S. Dairy Forage
Research Center); Morris, Minnesota (North Central Soil Conservation
Research Laboratory); Mandan, North Dakota (North Great Plains Research
Laboratory); Tifton, Georgia (Southeast Watershed Research Unit); and
El Reno, Oklahoma (Grazinglands Research Laboratory). The research at
these units is done in cooperation with university and industry
partners.
Question. Booneville is the home of unique long-term water quality
research including a 20-year grazing study that began in 2003 using 15
small watersheds in Booneville, and a 10-year study on the effects of
poultry litter application method on nutrient runoff to watersheds.
Both of these studies promise answers to critical issues plaguing the
entire region. What are your plans to continue this highly valuable
research if Booneville is abandoned?
Answer. ARS maintains a nationwide network of research watersheds
at 22 locations. Similar research is being conducted in watersheds at
University Park, Pennsylvania; Beltsville, Maryland; Florence, South
Carolina; Madison, Wisconsin; Tifton, Georgia; Fayetteville, Arkansas;
Bushland, Texas; St. Paul, Minnesota; Mississippi State, Mississippi;
Bowling Green; Kentucky; and Clay Center, Nebraska. The research is
addressing animal production systems for cattle beef and dairy, swine,
and poultry. The mitigation of poultry litter impacts is specifically
addressed by research at University Park, Fayetteville, Mississippi
State, and Tifton.
Question. Additionally, Booneville is home to the only dedicated
ARS sheep and goat research program. Sheep and goats are an ideal
enterprise for small farms for the production of meat, wool, or milk,
and there is an exploding demand for these products in the United
States. What are your plans for conducting research in this area if you
abandon Booneville?
Answer. In addition to Booneville, ARS conducts research in sheep
production at other locations--Clay Center, Nebraska (U.S. Meat Animal
Research Center); Dubois, Idaho (U.S. Sheep Experiment Station); and El
Reno, Oklahoma (Grazinglands Research Laboratory). Research at these
locations is focused on the development of genetic resources for the
sheep industry including an ``easy care'' genetic composite for small
flock producers in the Midwestern and Eastern United States, and
maternal and terminal lines adapted for large Western and Southwestern
range flock production systems. This research program is also
coordinated with the rangeland programs to examine the interaction
between sheep and rangeland ecosystem services with specific focus on
grazing and fire remediation, invasive weeds, and rangeland ecology.
Additional research at the Grazinglands Research Laboratory is focused
on grazing system forage using pastures and winter annual forages to
reduce production costs and environmental impacts associated with
grazing for both small and large animal ruminants. ARS is planning to
initiate grazing goat research at El Reno in cooperation with the
Langston University Goat Research Center. ARS is providing leadership
for an international consortium which is developing a project to
sequence the goat genome. This project is being developed by ARS
scientists in Beltsville, Maryland, at the Beltsville Agriculture
Research Center.
Question. In your fiscal year 2012 budget proposal, this same
Center was proposed to be one of the sites for a major increase in
funding as part of an ARS biofuels feedstock initiative. Now this year
ARS is apparently targeting for elimination grazing research and
research that benefits small producers. I understand the budget
realities the agency faces, but the on-again, off-again, chaotic nature
of selecting funding priorities is out of line with the normal
activities of a research agency focused on long-term, basic research.
Can you explain the rationale behind the changes in ARS priorities from
year-to-year?
Answer. A portion of a President's budget request for $10 million
in 2010, and $6 million in 2011 to the USDA Regional Biomass Research
Centers was designated for Booneville, but these funds were not
appropriated. The Booneville location now has only three scientist
positions. Because of the loss of critical mass of scientists, and
adequate funding to support priority biomass research at Booneville,
small ruminant research will be addressed at other ARS locations
including applications to small scale producers for goats at El Reno,
Oklahoma, and coordination of regional biomass research at Temple,
Texas.
DELTA OBESITY PREVENTION UNIT
Question. USDA's fiscal year 2013 budget request proposes to
eliminate funding for the Delta Obesity Prevention Research Unit in
Little Rock, Arkansas. I am opposed to this proposed elimination. In
previous years, ARS has proposed changing priorities for the Delta
Obesity Prevention Research Unit. It was suggested by ARS that funding
redirected from this unit would be used at AR Children's Nutrition
Center, Tufts, and Houston to augment basic nutrition research that
could be targeted to the Delta region. What happened to that proposal?
This year's budget proposal simply proposes to terminate this funding
and redirect ``to more critical needs.''
Answer. The President's budget for fiscal year 2012 proposed
redirection of funds from the Delta Obesity Prevention Research Unit
(DOPRU) to a study that would evaluate factors affecting adherence to
the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The funds for that study were to
be reallocated to Beltsville, Maryland, but all six of the ARS Human
Nutrition Research Centers were to participate in the research and
would have received a share of those funds distributed from Beltsville.
This proposed reallocation was never implemented since Congress, in the
2012 conference report, directed that the funds continue to support
DOPRU. The proposed closure of DOPRU is part of the ARS proposed
termination of several predominantly extramural research projects.
CATFISH INSPECTION
Question. With passage of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of
2008 Congress shifted inspection and regulation of catfish from the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). Since
that time, USDA has undertaken a thorough process to implement this new
responsibility, including issuing a proposed rule and completing the
comment period on June 24, 2011. It has been almost 4 years since this
responsibility was given to USDA-FSIS. When will the final rule be
implemented?
Answer. Because there are many factors that influence rulemaking,
it is difficult to estimate when the final rule is published, but FSIS
will do so as soon as possible.
Question. What are the challenges with completing this rule?
Answer. As you know, the law provided that USDA define ``catfish,''
which is not as simple as it may seem. In the taxonomy of fish,
Siluriformes (the common name of which is ``catfish'') consist of 36
different families, among which are Ictaluridae (North American channel
and blue catfish) and Pangasiidae (which are common to Asia). While
some Siluriformes imported from Asia include those in the family
Ictaluridae, much of the product is in the family Pangasiidae. Thus,
there is a great deal of controversy surrounding the question of
whether ``catfish'' should be defined narrowly or broadly.
Question. Will you commit to issuing this final rule this year?
Answer. FSIS will publish a final rule as soon as possible.
FARM SERVICE AGENCY OFFICE CLOSURES
Question. Do you foresee any need to take further action beyond the
``Blueprint for Stronger Service'' initiative to further reduce the
number of Farm Service Agency (FSA) county offices?
Answer. There is currently no plan or proposal to close more than
the 131 FSA county offices identified on January 9, 2012.
Over the last 2 years, FSA's salaries and expenses appropriation
has been reduced by more than 5 percent. These reductions have
necessitated significant reductions in administrative spending, a
reduction in permanent staffing by 12.5 percent, and the proposed
consolidation of 131 offices in 32 States. These actions were designed
to bring the Agency's operating budget in line with the current and
expected future funding levels. USDA will continue to do its best to
serve America's farmers and ranchers within the funding level set by
Congress.
Question. How could the process used to consider USDA field office
consolidations be improved to involve stakeholders in the process
before these proposals are officially announced?
Answer. USDA adheres to congressional notification requirements in
the annual appropriations acts. For FSA, additional guidelines are laid
out in the 2008 farm bill.
The proposal to close 131 FSA county offices remains the Agency's
only proposal to close FSA offices. This proposal was announced on
January 9, 2012. Over the following month, FSA held public meetings in
each affected county and notified Congress of the proposed office
closures on February 27, 2012. The public meetings enabled stakeholders
to share their concerns with senior FSA leadership. FSA communicated
about the circumstances that led to proposed county office closures--
the need to manage the Agency under significantly reduced operational
spending, 12.5 percent fewer permanent staff, and an ever-increasing
workload, while continuing to deliver the best possible service to
farmers and ranchers. FSA's approach to consultation adhered to
statutory requirements, and provided a transparent and inclusive means
to communicate with affected parties.
Question. With 2,800 NRCS offices and only 2,100 FSA offices
remaining open across the country, how is USDA insuring that producers
are being adequately serviced in locations without both agencies
present?
Answer. We strongly believe that co-location is a great benefit to
producers, and we will continue to offer these arrangements wherever
possible. However, it is important to note that even before the
proposed closures were announced, not all FSA offices had an NRCS
presence. Further, we do not believe the proposed closures
significantly undermine our efforts to co-locate FSA and NRCS offices.
FSA is modernizing IT and improving its business processes so that
farmers will be able to do more of their business with FSA without
having to visit an office. If the proposed consolidations occur, FSA
will concentrate staff in its 2,113 remaining offices in order to
provide consistent service in fully staffed, fully functioning offices.
If the proposed consolidations take place, producers may choose any
county office that is convenient for them to conduct their FSA
business.
Question. Recently there has been a lot of emphasis on reorganizing
the field office structure of the Farm Service Agency in an attempt to
provide better more timely service to the producers they serve. Most
private businesses do not cut or make reductions at the customer level
until a complete review of their structure has been completed above the
field level. As I look at USDA's Blue Print for Success, it appears to
me that you have not made any attempts to review FSA's structure above
the field level to find needed savings. When does USDA plan on
reviewing and reorganizing USDA/FSA above the field level? Does USDA
have any plans to reduce the number of State offices?
Answer. FSA reviewed its operations at all levels to identify
administrative efficiencies that resulted in significant savings. FSA
also achieved needed savings by reducing staff levels in national,
State, and county offices by 12.5 percent. There is currently no plan
or proposal to close any offices other than the 131 FSA county offices
identified on January 9, 2012.
Question. Under USDA's Blueprint for Success, a number of county
offices met the criteria of two or fewer permanent full-time employees
after VERA (voluntary early retirement program) and VSIP (voluntary
incentive payment retirement program) programs in 2011. Some of these
offices have the workload to support four or more employees and
employed four or more FTEs when calendar year 2011 began. Because of
VERA and VSIP, some of these offices were quickly reduced to two FTEs.
When you looked at the number of employees for each office, did you
take into account the previous workload of each office?
Answer. The VERA and VSIP opportunities were implemented in order
to reduce staffing necessary to live within current and expected future
budget realities. To identify FSA offices for consolidation, USDA
followed criteria provided by Congress in section 14212 of the 2008
farm bill, which required, for any office closures, that the Secretary
``first close any offices of the Farm Service Agency that--(a) are
located less than 20 miles from another office of the Farm Service
Agency; and (b) have two or fewer permanent full-time employees.'' In
addition, FSA proposed for closure all offices with zero full-time,
permanent employees regardless of the distance to another FSA office.
Question. Office closure language included in the 2008 farm bill
called for offices located closer than 20 miles apart would be the
first offices considered for closure/consolidation. Under USDA's
Blueprint for Success, there are a number of cases where the navigable
miles between the proposed office to be closed and the proposed
receiving office is significantly more than 20 miles. You mentioned in
a previous letter that USDA used Euclidian miles in order to be more
objective. Why was it determined that 20 Euclidian miles were more
objective than 20 navigable road miles when developing the list of
offices proposed to be closed/consolidated?
Answer. USDA measured using Euclidian miles because Euclidean miles
offer no advantages to any particular county. Euclidean miles are the
most uniform and equitable unit of measurement for distance, regardless
of geography or terrain.
Question. Since 1996, USDA has prided itself in using the Service
Center for customers utilizing programs and services provided by any
agency in USDA. Repeatedly, USDA has stated the importance of having
all USDA agencies in a single location to provide maximum customer
service. Knowing 131 of the 259 USDA offices being proposed for closure
are FSA county offices, this will certainly cause the Service Center
concept to be abandoned in many areas. How can USDA maximize customer
service while abandoning the Service Center, causing USDA customers to
visit separate locations to transact business?
Answer. It is important to note that even before the proposed
closures were announced, not all FSA offices were Service Center
locations. Further, we do not believe the proposed closures undermine
the Service Center concept. However, we strongly believe the Service
Center concept is a great benefit to producers, and we will continue to
offer these arrangements wherever possible. We understand the concerns
of producers who will have to travel to another location to conduct
business with FSA once consolidations take effect. However, over the
past 3 years, FSA has had to make tough decisions to be able to
continue to operate within significantly reduced budgets.
FSA is modernizing IT and improving its business processes so that
farmers will be able to do more of their business with FSA without
having to visit an FSA office. FSA will concentrate staff in its
remaining offices in order to provide consistent service in fully
staffed, fully functioning offices. Producers affected by an office
closure will be able to choose any county office that is convenient for
them to conduct their FSA business.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Kohl. And this hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., Thursday, March 29, 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 2013
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 1:58 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Herb Kohl (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Kohl, Pryor, Brown, Blunt, Collins,
Moran, and Hoeven.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
STATEMENT OF DR. MARGARET HAMBURG, COMMISSIONER
ACCOMPANIED BY:
PATRICK McGAREY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, 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 afternoon. The subcommittee will come to
order.
Today's hearing will focus on the Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA's) fiscal year 2013 budget request. We
welcome Commissioner Hamburg, Mr. McGarey, and Mr. Cochran. We
appreciate your being here.
Before we begin, I'd like everyone to know that we have
votes scheduled for 2:15 p.m. today. So right now we'll plan on
just having opening statements by myself, Senator Blunt, as
well as Commissioner Hamburg. Once the votes are called, we'll
have to stand in recess until the votes are through, and we'll
come back then and begin our questions. So we thank everybody
for accommodating that.
The administration's budget request for fiscal year 2013
stands in stark contrast to the requests of recent years. Since
2008, the Congress has provided the FDA with budget increases
totaling nearly 30 percent and the administration's requests
have even been higher. This year, however, the FDA budget
proposes an increase of only $15 million, bringing total
funding to approximately $2.51 billion.
Two main funding increases requested in this budget are $10
million to enhance inspections of drugs and drug ingredients
manufactured in China, and to work with Chinese manufacturers
on ways to meet FDA standards; and $18 million to complete the
FDA's Life Sciences-Biodefense Laboratory complex. These
increases are partially offset by decreases found elsewhere in
FDA's budget.
As we are all aware, this subcommittee has worked over the
past several years to provide FDA with increased funding for
food safety activities. This year the only additional funds for
food safety are requested in the form of a new user fee. My
understanding is that negotiations on this user fee are in
their earliest stages, and it is not likely to be passed this
year. This means essentially that food safety activities are
flat-funded in this budget, when we all know that the FDA's
workload in this area has certainly not leveled off. That
concerns us. I look forward to discussing this further.
I don't believe that this budget request reflects less
support for FDA by the administration, but I do believe it
reflects the budget realities that we continue to face. The FDA
has been exempt from significant cuts found elsewhere
throughout the Government. This will certainly prove to be the
most difficult year in recent history. The importance of FDA's
work has not diminished, and the agency's workload continues to
increase. I have said in the past that I believe ensuring the
safety of our food and drug supply is an important Federal
function and should not and cannot be relegated to State and
local governments as well as private industry.
As these functions continue to become more and more complex
every day, we will do our best to provide FDA with the funding
you need to do your job well, with the understanding that we
are all being required to do more with less.
We look forward to your testimony, Dr. Hamburg. But first,
Senator Blunt.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROY BLUNT
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding today's hearing on the FDA budget. I want to thank our
witnesses for being here today. I look forward to working with
the subcommittee, but particularly to working with the
chairman, who has had such a good impact on FDA issues over his
time on this subcommittee.
Commissioner Hamburg, thanks for your visit the other day.
The agency you head regulates approximately 20 cents out of
every $1 spent in America and Americans expect the FDA-related
products will be safe and effective. Similarly, the industry
expects transparency and certainty from the FDA.
The agency has authority over 185,000 domestic
establishments that range from food processing plants to
facilities that manufacture life-saving medications. As
companies struggle through the recession, FDA must be mindful
that burdensome regulations can stifle innovation and lead to
unnecessary expenses that limit small businesses' ability to
create jobs.
For example, FDA's currently reviewing comments on a
proposed rule that would require restaurants to list calorie
content for standard menu items and of course very specifically
defining standard menu items so you could know what that
standard was. I believe the proposed rule that you've asked for
comment on and haven't finalized is at this point still
unnecessarily broad and too inflexible, but hopefully the final
rule will benefit from the comments you're receiving.
When implementing the rule, you should adopt the least
burdensome alternatives that meet your responsibility, and
doesn't unnecessarily regulate stores that don't sell food as
their primary business or other things that wouldn't be
necessary under the act. In addition, the rule should be
flexible enough to allow locations that don't serve their
patrons on site the opportunity to provide nutrition
information in a variety of formats.
I look forward to being able to discuss this issue a little
further.
I'd also like to take a moment to mention that this very
well may be the last hearing of the subcommittee this year.
Chairman Kohl has announced that he'll leave the Senate soon, I
suppose maybe to focus on basketball full-time or one of his
other many activities that he's involved in. But this may be
his final hearing as chairman. We're going to continue to work
closely together to produce a bill.
I'd like to say that in leading this subcommittee he's
really displayed keen knowledge of all the work of the
subcommittee and--as you know, Commissioner--has shown
particular interest and has been a real leader on FDA issues,
particularly on food safety, and really, it's been an honor for
me to get to work with him last year. I hope we produce a bill
this year that we can get to the floor again, and we'll both be
out there doing what we can to make this subcommittee work
under the chairman's leadership.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
Now, Dr. Hamburg.
STATEMENT OF DR. MARGARET HAMBURG
Dr. Hamburg. Thank you, Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member
Blunt. I do also want to take this opportunity to thank you,
Chairman Kohl, for the extraordinary leadership that you've
shown over so many years and the support you've given the FDA
in our important mission.
I am joined, as you note, by Patrick McGarey, who is our
Assistant Commissioner for Budget, and Norris Cochran, who's
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget at the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS).
Let me begin by again thanking you and the subcommittee for
your efforts in recent years to really try to shrink the gap
between the agency's budget and its vast and evolving
responsibilities. Your leadership has put us on a path towards
more appropriate funding levels to support our unique and
crucial mission. We are using these funds responsibly to
reinforce our core functions and to obtain the most public
health value for the Federal dollar during these challenging
fiscal times. We're deploying smarter and more flexible
regulatory approaches and better targeting of our inspectional
resources. We've consolidated our information technology (IT)
infrastructure into modern data centers and expanded our
efforts to leverage both financial and human capital through
collaborations with public and private partners.
DRUG APPROVALS
With your support, we have produced concrete results that
really matter. For example, we lead the world in the number and
speed of drug approvals, while maintaining high standards for
safety and efficacy. Last year we approved 35 innovative new
drugs, many of them groundbreaking, the second highest number
of approvals in more than a decade.
During this fiscal year, we've continued our strong
performance and have already approved 15 innovative new drugs
and biologics. Last year a total of 195 drug shortages were
prevented through proactive collaboration with patients,
healthcare providers, and manufacturers, and by exercising
regulatory flexibility. This year we've already prevented
another 30 drug shortages.
FOOD SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT
Just 1 year after the enactment of the Food Safety
Modernization Act, we've issued guidances and interim final
rules and are on the way to meeting the 5-year inspection
mandate for high-risk domestic facilities.
I think it is critical to note, though, that the volume and
complexity of the products we regulate and the complexity of
the supply chains by which they reach American consumers has
increased dramatically. We receive thousands of medical product
submissions each year and serve as the watchdog for the safety
of tens of thousands of products that are already in the
marketplace, and we oversee the safety of roughly 80 percent of
the Nation's food supply. Imports of food products alone come
from some 200 different countries and from more than 250,000
foreign facilities each year.
GLOBALIZATION
In addition, our core responsibilities are expanding to
include additional product areas, such as tobacco, and evolving
to accommodate scientific and technological advances and the
challenges of globalization. Our budget request reflects these
complexities and new demands, although, as you note, it is
modest.
FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET
The fiscal year 2013 budget recommends $4.5 billion for FDA
overall, a 17-percent increase from fiscal year 2012. User fees
account for 98 percent of the increase, however. We're
proposing cuts or savings in two areas, IT and related systems
and building and facilities. FDA is also absorbing more than 80
percent of inflationary rent costs.
Our fiscal year 2013 budget authority increases will
support import safety, medical countermeasures, White Oak
facilities, the commissioned corps pay raise, and about 20
percent of our rent increase.
BUDGET REQUEST
To strengthen the safety of foods and drugs from China, FDA
is requesting $10 million. Exports from China are experiencing
unprecedented growth. In the last 5 years alone, shipments of
FDA-regulated products from China increased by 62 percent. So
that represents a fundamental shift of our economic and
security landscape. These additional resources will strengthen
our capacity to inspect Chinese facilities and our ability to
work with our colleagues in China and our ability to perform
risk analysis on Chinese exports.
MEDICAL COUNTERMEASURES
Thanks to this subcommittee, FDA received a fiscal year
2012 appropriation of $20 million for medical countermeasures.
The fiscal year 2013 budget recommends an additional $3.5
million to support development and review of new diagnostics,
medical treatments, vaccines, and other technologies against a
range of naturally occurring or deliberate chemical,
biological, radiological, or nuclear threats, and new funding
will help support initiatives focused on acute radiation
syndrome, the needs of children and pregnant women, in vitro
diagnostic tests, and building flexible medical countermeasure
manufacturing capacity, and allow us to continue other ongoing
efforts.
LIFE SCIENCES-BIODEFENSE LABORATORY
The President's budget also proposes an increase of $17.7
million to outfit the new Life Sciences-Biodefense Laboratory
and ensure that all of the biosafety systems are operational
before we occupy and can use the laboratory.
USER FEES
User fees clearly represent a substantial part of our
fiscal year 2013 budget and I want to address that briefly. The
current user fee programs for drugs and medical devices
expires, as you no doubt know, on September 30 of this year.
The reauthorization process is now well under way and new user
fee programs for generic drugs and biosimilars have also been
put forward.
FOOD SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT
But to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act and
reduce the burden of food-borne illness on consumers and
American food producers, a new food facility registration fee
that would generate $220 million has been proposed. Additional
proposals include new user fees to support the cosmetic and
food contact substance programs, to compensate FDA for medical
product reinspections, and support import operations at courier
hubs.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So, to conclude, let me emphasize that the resources in
this budget are vital to our efforts to ensure timely access to
innovative products, as well as our commitment to protecting
the public from unsafe food and ensuring safe, effective
medical products.
I appreciate your time and attention and will be happy to
answer any questions you may have after you come back from your
vote.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Margaret Hamburg
Chairman Kohl, Senator Blunt and members of the subcommittee, I am
Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration. I am pleased to present the President's fiscal year
2013 budget request for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
I want to begin by thanking you for your efforts over the past few
years to shrink the gap between the FDA's budget and its vast and
evolving responsibilities. We have made every effort to spend those
funds responsibly--to reinforce core functions and obtain the most
public health value for the dollar.
As a science-based regulatory agency of global scope, FDA's mission
is both exciting and daunting. Our core responsibilities are evolving
and expanding to include additional product areas such as tobacco, to
accommodate scientific and technological advances, and to step up to
the global leadership role that FDA must play if we are to promote
innovation and protect American consumers.
Our recent spending and new budget requests reflect this evolution.
We are embracing these changes in several important ways--by deploying
smarter and more flexible regulatory approaches, by identifying
efficiencies and innovative approaches to deliver our core mission,
improve outcomes, and better target our resources, and by using
collaborations to leverage expertise, data, and experience. Through
these approaches, we are already improving efficiency and achieving
concrete results. While the challenges loom large, we are confident
that we have identified investments and approaches that will allow us
to continue this evolution and to protect and promote the public
health.
FDA INVESTMENTS AND RESULTS
With the funding you have provided, FDA has delivered significant
and quantifiable benefits for the American people, and we are very
proud of these achievements.
In the area of drugs, FDA now has the highest first action approval
rate for new drugs we have ever achieved, and we continue to look for
ways to improve the predictability, consistency, and transparency of
our drug review process. During fiscal year 2011, we approved 35
innovative drugs, many of them ground-breaking. This was the second-
highest number of approvals in the past decade. These drugs represented
real advances for patients, including breakthroughs in personalized
medicine. They include two novel drugs that were developed and approved
with diagnostic devices that will allow doctors to target the drug to
those patients most likely to respond, as well as new drugs to treat
important medical conditions.
To achieve these results and to speed access to the American
people, we demonstrated regulatory flexibility, using, for example,
accelerated approvals and innovative clinical trial designs. Of note,
we lead the world in the number and speed of drug approvals. Of the 57
novel drugs approved by both FDA and the European Union between 2006
and 2010, 75 percent were approved first in the United States.
Furthermore, between 2003 and 2010, all 23 cancer drugs approved by FDA
and the European Union were approved first in the United States by FDA.
During fiscal year 2012, we continued our strong performance. Since
October 1, FDA approved 15 innovative drugs and biologics. Of the 15,
11 (or 73 percent) were approved in the United States first. Fourteen
of these products had Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) deadlines,
and we met the PDUFA deadline for 13 of the 14 products (that is, we
met the PDUFA deadline 93 percent of the time). Just as important, of
the 15 innovative drugs and biologics, 12 were approved on the first
cycle, for an 80-percent first-cycle approval rate.
Some specific information on individual drug approvals will provide
context for the importance of these actions. During January 2012, FDA
approved a truly breakthrough product in the field of personalized
medicine, a drug to treat a rare form of cystic fibrosis. Known as
ivacaftor and sold under the trade name Kalydeco, this drug only works
for patients with a certain genetic mutation. But, thanks to advances
in personalized medicine, physicians can identify patients with this
mutation. This allows doctors to use Kalydeco only for patients where
the drug will be effective. For patients who respond to this drug, it
can keep their lungs clear, help them breathe, and make an enormous
difference in the quality of their lives.
The FDA drug review process normally takes about 10 months. But in
the case of Kalydeco, a drug of great importance for patients in need,
this drug was approved in less than 4 months.
FDA approved another drug in January 2012. Known as vismodegib and
sold under the trade name Erivedge, it is the first FDA-approved drug
for metastatic basal cell carcinoma, the most common type of skin
cancer. This new drug interferes very little with the growth of healthy
cells, but works by disrupting the molecular pathway in the body that
causes cancer cells to grow. Given there were no available treatments
at the time, FDA took measures to expedite its approval. As a result,
Erivedge was approved in less than 5 months--or half the time of a
typical FDA approval.
We have also been working aggressively to address and prevent drug
shortages and to implement important Presidential directives. On
October 31, 2011, the President issued an Executive order that directed
FDA to take action to help further reduce and prevent drug shortages.
In 2011, FDA successfully prevented at least 195 drug shortages. During
the first 3 months of 2012, FDA prevented 22 shortages. FDA has sent
letters to pharmaceutical manufacturers, reminding them of their legal
obligations to report certain discontinuances to FDA, and urging them
to voluntarily notify FDA of all potential disruptions of the
prescription drug supply, even when not required by law. This has
resulted in a significant increase in the number of potential shortages
reported to FDA, and thus enhanced our ability to take action. In
February of this year, we announced a series of steps to increase the
supply of critically needed cancer drugs that were in short supply,
including exercising enforcement discretion for the temporary
importation of an alternative drug and approving a new manufacturer on
an expedited basis.
We are also playing our part to address the rising costs of
healthcare, by implementing a new approval pathway for biosimilar
biological products and a user fee program to support review and
evaluation of biosimilar products. We are also proposing a new generic
drug user fee program that will support faster, more predictable
reviews for generic drugs, effectively eliminate the current generic
application backlog, and help assure quality by providing resources for
regular surveillance inspections of manufacturers of generic drugs.
In the area of medical devices, in 2011, FDA released the Plan of
Action for Implementation of 510(k) and Science Recommendations, which
contained 25 specific actions that we would take in 2011 to improve the
predictability, consistency, and transparency of our premarket
programs. Seventy-five percent of those actions, plus eight additional
actions, are already completed or well underway. We issued guidance on
FDA's regulatory expectations for personalized medicine diagnostic
devices that are developed along with a therapeutic product, to target
that therapeutic product to the appropriate population. We launched the
Innovation Initiative, which proposed actions that FDA could take to
help accelerate and reduce the cost of developing and evaluating
innovative medical devices, using science-based principles to maintain
or improve patient safety.
In the area of food safety, the most sweeping reform of our food
safety laws in more than 70 years was signed into law by President
Obama on January 4, 2011--the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).
We issued an interim final rule describing the criteria for
administrative detention of food when there is reason to believe the
food is adulterated or misbranded, and we have used this authority
several times. We met the 1-year FSMA mandate for inspections of
foreign facilities, and are well on the way to meeting the 5-year
inspection frequency mandate for high-risk domestic food facilities. We
also issued an updated guidance for the seafood industry on food safety
hazards. We anticipate issuing several proposed rules called for in
FSMA shortly. We post regular progress reports on implementation
milestones on our Web site.
In the area of tobacco, we have been working to achieve a number of
significant public health goals since enactment of the Tobacco Control
Act of 2009. These include restricting youth access to cigarettes and
smokeless tobacco, encouraging youth and adults who use tobacco
products to quit, providing accurate information on the contents of
tobacco products and the consequences of tobacco use to the public, and
using regulatory tools to protect kids from initiating tobacco use and
to begin to reduce the public health burden of tobacco in the United
States.
We also have been aggressively and systematically addressing
challenges that affect all products that FDA regulates. In June 2011,
FDA issued our ``Pathway to Global Product Safety and Quality'' report,
describing the challenges of regulating in the globalized world in
which FDA now operates, calling for a paradigm shift in how we approach
our duties in light of such challenges, and describing the concrete
actions we will take in four areas:
--Assembling global coalitions of regulators dedicated to building
and strengthening the product safety net around the world;
--Developing a global data information system and network in which
regulators worldwide can regularly and proactively share real-
time information and resources across markets;
--Expanding FDA's capabilities in intelligence gathering and use,
with an increased focus on risk analytics and thoroughly
modernized IT capabilities; and
--Effectively allocating FDA resources based on risk, leveraging the
combined efforts of Government and industry.
The essence of this strategy marries creative international
coalitions with cutting-edge investigative tools to continue to provide
the consistently high level of safety and quality assurance the public
expects--and deserves.
MAXIMIZING THE IMPACT OF FDA FUNDS
At this time of fiscal restraint, FDA is focusing on its core
responsibilities and working to identify opportunities to streamline
activities and leverage human and financial resources.
I have instituted a series of reorganizations designed to ensure
that FDA better reflects its evolving responsibilities, but that also
recognizes our responsibility to make the most efficient use of our
limited resources. Early in my tenure, I appointed a new Deputy
Commissioner for Foods, to ensure coordination of our growing and
rapidly evolving responsibilities for oversight of the domestic and
global food supply chain.
Last year I created the new position of Deputy Commissioner for
Global Regulatory Operations and Policy, to fully address the need to
integrate domestic and foreign inspections, streamline procedures, and
seek greater harmonization and opportunities for collaboration with our
counterparts in other countries. I also appointed a new Deputy
Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco, reflecting our
recognition that the review of medical products increasingly cuts
across center boundaries and that a new framework was necessary to
address challenges like personalized medicine and combination products.
Together, these changes build efficiencies into our organizational
structure from the ground up and will make it easier to identify new
opportunities for streamlining in the years to come.
We have made significant progress in consolidating our IT
infrastructure into modern data centers. Simultaneously, we have
modernized and standardized our hardware and software infrastructure,
resulting in savings in power consumption and the ability to use FDA
equipment and IT support resources more efficiently. You will see
savings from this consolidation reflected in our proposed budget for
fiscal year 2013, as well as additional proposed savings.
Another key area for improved efficiencies is improved targeting of
inspection resources. We have been working hard to ensure that our
import inspection programs are risk-based, targeting imports at port-
of-entry more efficiently. We are redeploying current food inspection
resources and pursuing efficiencies to support initial implementation
of FSMA.
PREPARING FDA FOR THE CHALLENGES AHEAD
FDA's mission is challenging, even in the best of times, with
scientific advances occurring at breakneck speed and the pace of
globalization accelerating. Our responsibilities are vast and growing,
a trend that will only continue. We receive thousands of medical
product submissions each year, and serve as the watchdog for tens of
thousands of products on the market, ensuring that they continue to
meet the highest standards.
We have evolved from a country that once consumed simple, primarily
domestically produced goods to one that consumes complex products
manufactured in every corner of the globe. We enjoy a greater variety
of products from a greater range of places than ever before. The
complexity of the products we regulate and the complexity of the supply
chains by which they reach the eventual consumer has only increased.
All of this means that FDA's job has gotten more complex and the stakes
have continued to increase.
As our fiscal year 2013 budget notes, FDA regulates more than $450
billion of domestic and imported foods. Nearly 40 percent of the drugs
Americans take are made overseas, and about 80 percent of active
pharmaceutical ingredients are imported. Food imports have increased
nine-fold since 1993. These food imports come from more than 250,000
foreign facilities in 200 countries. About 70 percent of seafood and
about 35 percent of fresh produce consumed in the United States comes
from foreign countries.
We are grateful that Congress has begun to help give FDA the tools
needed to effectively regulate in a modern, complex, globalized
environment. We are on the right path, but the road is long and
challenging. The proposed fiscal year 2013 budget, described in more
detail below, will continue the forward motion that you have supported.
FDA FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST
Fiscal Year 2013 Summary
The fiscal year 2013 budget recommends $4.5 billion for FDA, a 17-
percent increase from fiscal year 2012. The fiscal year 2013 increase
for user fees, including increases for current law user fees and
amounts for seven new user fee programs, accounts for 98 percent of the
FDA budget increase.
FDA user fee programs support safety and effectiveness reviews of
human and animal drugs, biological products, medical devices, and other
FDA-regulated products. Fees also allow FDA programs to achieve timely
and enhanced premarket review performance. Finally, fees support the
programs and operations of the FDA Center for Tobacco Products.
For fiscal year 2013, FDA is proposing savings in two areas--
information technology (IT) and the FDA Buildings and Facilities (B&F)
account. In addition to these budget authority reductions, FDA is also
absorbing more than 80 percent of the inflationary cost of rent
activities.
After accounting for these savings, the net increase in budget
authority is $11.5 million for fiscal year 2013. Our increases support
import safety, medical countermeasures, White Oak laboratory
facilities, a portion of the increased cost of our rent activities, and
the military pay raise that FDA Commissioned Corps officers will
receive.
The Federal investment in FDA is small compared to the breadth of
our mission and the $2 trillion in products that we regulate. The
investment in FDA is also an investment in the economic health of two
of the largest sectors of America's economy: The U.S. food industry and
the medical products industry.
FDA Budget Authority
Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Reductions
FDA made significant progress in recent years to consolidate our IT
infrastructure into modern data center facilities. During the
consolidation, FDA modernized and standardized its hardware and
software infrastructure. This effort provides an FDA computing
environment that reduces our costs and provides agility not previously
possible. The result is savings in power consumption and more efficient
use of FDA equipment and resources for IT support.
Under this fiscal year 2013 initiative, FDA will realize savings
that flow from the consolidation effort. FDA will generate additional
IT savings by streamlining other data management activities, reducing
redundant IT devices, and reducing other IT costs, for a total savings
of $19.7 million. Finally, FDA will also save $3.5 million by deferring
repair and maintenance projects supported by our Building and
Facilities account.
Food and Drug Imports From China
FDA is requesting a budget authority increase of $10 million to
strengthen the safety of foods, drug products, and ingredients exported
from China to the United States. From fiscal year 2007 to 2011, the
number of shipments of FDA-regulated products from China increased by
62 percent. This represents a fundamental change in our economic and
security landscape, a change that requires FDA to alter its approach to
protecting the health of the American public. To address this change,
FDA must strengthen its capacity to inspect Chinese facilities that
ship products to the United States and strengthen its ability to
perform risk analysis on FDA-regulated products from China.
The addition of $10 million will strengthen FDA's ability to
protect American consumers and patients in important and fundamental
ways.
--FDA will improve its food and drug inspection and analytical
capabilities with 16 additional inspectors in China, and by
adding three United States-based analysts.
--FDA will broaden the range of its inspections. In addition to
inspecting Chinese facilities that manufacture food and medical
products for export to the United States, FDA will inspect
sites of clinical trials.
--FDA will strengthen the understanding of Chinese regulators and the
exporting industry about U.S. safety standards through targeted
workshops and seminars. This process will foster a constructive
dialogue on improving the safety and quality of food and
medical products.
With these resources, FDA will develop more robust knowledge about
the complexities of regulatory pathways and supply chains within an
increasingly globalized environment. This understanding will allow FDA
to make better evidence-based decisions and allocate FDA resources
based upon risk.
FDA Medical Countermeasures Initiative
The FDA Medical Countermeasures Initiative (MCMi) is designed to
help meet America's national security and public health requirements
for medical countermeasure (MCM) readiness. MCMs include drugs,
vaccines, diagnostics, and other medical products needed to respond to
chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear (CBRN) threats and emerging
infectious diseases.
Thanks to the efforts of this subcommittee, FDA received an
appropriation of $20 million in fiscal year 2012 to provide a base of
funding for FDA's MCMi. For fiscal year 2013, the FDA budget includes
an additional $3.5 million for FDA medical countermeasures activities.
With the fiscal year 2012 base funding and the additional fiscal
year 2013 resources, FDA will support partnerships with industry,
academia, and Government partners to improve the development timelines
and success rates for MCMs. FDA will also expand technical assistance
to developers of the highest priority MCMs.
The top priorities for these MCM funds include FDA action teams to
support the development of MCMs to address the following MCM needs:
--Warfighter care for American soldiers exposed to trauma or CBRN
threats;
--Diagnosing and treating the multiple manifestations of acute
radiation syndrome;
--Meeting the special needs of pediatric patients and pregnant women;
--Developing next generation in vitro diagnostic tests for CBRN
threats; and
--Working closely with HHS to establish flexible manufacturing
capacity in the United States.
Since the announcement of the FDA MCMi in August 2010, FDA and its
drug, device and biologics programs have worked aggressively to ensure
that the United States has access to high-priority MCMs during a public
health emergency. Although less than 2 years old, FDA's MCMi has an
impressive list of accomplishments, made possible by the resources that
this subcommittee approved.
FDA Regulatory Science Facilities
On August 18, 2010, the General Services Administration (GSA)
awarded the construction contract for the new laboratory complex at
White Oak, and construction is well underway.
An fiscal year 2013 increase of $17.7 million will allow FDA to
outfit the new Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)-
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Life Sciences-Biodefense
Laboratory complex that will support FDA's core regulatory science
needs. FDA must make this investment now to ensure that all laboratory
biosafety hazard systems are operational and the laboratory is ready
for occupancy during fiscal year 2014.
Pay and Rent
The fiscal year 2013 budget also contains $1.5 million to support
the military pay increase for Commissioned Corps personnel serving at
FDA and $2.0 million to pay a portion of the inflationary rent costs
for FDA for FDA programs. Funding these elements of the fiscal year
2013 budget will help ensure that FDA can retain the professional staff
to perform our mission of protecting patients and consumers and
improving public health.
FDA User Fees
Prescription Drug User Fees
In January 2012, the Administration submitted legislation to
Congress to reauthorize the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). The
proposed legislation recommends $713 million in PDUFA fees for fiscal
year 2013. The current law expires on September 30, 2012, and FDA is
ready to work with Congress to ensure timely reauthorization of this
vital program. To sustain and build on our record of accomplishments,
reauthorization must occur seamlessly, without any gap between the
expiration of the old law and the enactment of PDUFA V. The resources
in PDUFA V will allow FDA to review and approve new and innovative
therapies for patients, without compromising the FDA's high standards
for demonstrating safety, efficacy, and quality of new drugs prior to
approval.
Medical Device User Fees
For more than a year, FDA met with stakeholders and held
discussions with the medical device industry in an effort to develop a
package of recommendations to reauthorize the Medical Device User Fee
Act (MDUFA). On February 17, 2012, FDA reached an agreement with
representatives from the medical device industry, and published draft
recommendations to reauthorize MDUFA on March 15. The agreement would
authorize FDA to collect $595 million in user fees over 5 years, an
amount that is subject to inflation increases. The agreement would also
result in an fiscal year 2013 MDUFA fee amount is $97.7 million.
The agreement strikes a careful balance between what industry
agreed to pay and what FDA can accomplish with the proposed funding. We
believe that it will result in greater predictability, consistency, and
transparency through improvements to the review process.
Key features of the agreement include:
--Earlier, more transparent and more predictable interactions between
FDA and applicants, both during the early product development
stage as well as during the review process;
--More detailed and objective criteria for determining when a
premarket submission is incomplete and should not be accepted
for review;
--More streamlined FDA review goals that will provide better overall
performance and greater predictability. This includes a
commitment to provide feedback to an applicant if FDA's review
extends beyond the goal date, so that the parties can discuss
how to resolve any outstanding issues;
--Additional resources to support guidance development, reviewer
training and professional development, and an independent
assessment of the premarket review process to identify
potential enhancements to efficiency and effectiveness;
--More detailed quarterly and annual reporting of program
performance; and
--A commitment between FDA and industry to reduce the total average
calendar time to a decision for premarket approvals (PMAs) and
510k applications.
New User Fees for Generics and Biosimilars
In addition to recommending the reauthorization of PDUFA and the
Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act (MDUFMA), the fiscal year
2013 budget recommends new user fee programs to support review and
related activities for generic drugs and biosimilars. The proposed user
fee programs for generic drugs and biosimilars are modeled on the
successful PDUFA program, but are tailored to reflect the unique
challenges and needs associated with regulating generic drugs and
biosimilars.
Generic Drug User Fees.--As a result of the Drug Price Competition
and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly known as the Hatch-
Waxman Amendments, America's generic drug industry has been developing,
manufacturing, and marketing--and FDA has been reviewing and
approving--lower cost versions of brand-name drugs for more than 25
years. This legislation and the industry it fostered are a true public
health success.
Last year, approximately 78 percent of the more than 3 billion new
and refilled prescriptions dispensed in the United States were filled
with generics, yet those drugs accounted for only 25 percent of
prescription drug spending. In the last decade alone, generic drugs
have provided more than $931 billion in savings to the Nation's
healthcare system.
The number of generic drug submissions sent annually to FDA has
grown rapidly, reaching another record high during fiscal year 2011,
including nearly 1,000 ANDAs. The current backlog of pending
applications is estimated to be more than 2,500. The current median
time to approval is approximately 31 months, although this includes
time that the application is with the sponsor to address FDA questions
about the application.
The Generic Drug User Fee Act (GDUFA) proposal submitted to
Congress in January 2012 will put FDA's generic drugs program on a firm
financial footing and provide $299 million in additional resources to
ensure timely access to safe, high-quality, affordable generic drugs.
Biosimilars User Fees.--A successful FDA biosimilars review program
will spark the development of a new segment of the biotechnology
industry in the United States. To advance this opportunity, the fiscal
year 2013 budget includes a proposal for biosimilar user fees of $20.2
million.
The proposed biosimilars user fee program will generate fee revenue
in the near-term and enable sponsors to have meetings with FDA early in
the process of developing candidates for biosimilar biological
products. With these fees, FDA will develop the scientific, regulatory,
and policy infrastructure necessary to review biosimilar biological
product applications.
Implementing FSMA--The Fiscal Year 2013 Food Establishment
Registration Fee
Food Safety remains a critical program area for FDA. FDA's fiscal
year 2013 proposal for food safety aims to advance the vision of a
strong, reliable food safety system that Congress enacted in the
landmark FDA Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 (FSMA). The fiscal
year 2013 budget proposal builds on the food safety increases that the
subcommittee appropriated for fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 and
calls for user fee revenue to allow FDA to establish a prevention-
focused domestic and import food safety system, consistent with FSMA.
FSMA set out a vision for a modern food safety system that shifts
the focus to preventing food safety problems, rather than relying
primarily on reacting to problems after they occur. Implementing
Congress' vision for a strengthened food safety system represents a
dramatic expansion of FDA's workload. However, the simple truth is that
FDA cannot meaningfully deliver on these mandates without the funding
contained in the fiscal year 2013 budget.
The fee will support:
--Establishing new, effective, and comprehensive food safety
standards;
--Establishing a new program for import safety;
--Increasing the number and efficiency of inspections;
--Launching an integrated national food safety system with States and
localities;
--Expanding research activities, which will include improved data
collection and risk analysis; and
--Improving FDA's capability to conduct risk-based decisionmaking.
These fees will allow FDA to reduce the risk of illness associated
with food and feed and decrease the frequency and severity of food- and
feed-borne illness outbreaks. With these fees, FDA can reduce instances
of contamination and greatly diminish the burden on American businesses
and the U.S. economy due to foodborne illness events. Without
sufficient and reliable fee revenue, we can expect the unacceptably
high human toll of foodborne illness to continue, with the resulting
disruptions to the food system and the economic burdens to the food
industry that result from foodborne illness outbreaks.
Tobacco Product User Fees
On June 22, 2009, President Obama signed the Family Smoking
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) into law.
Since 2009, the user fees authorized in the statute have allowed FDA's
Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) to hire Center leadership and enable
those leaders to initiate the scientific, educational, enforcement, and
regulatory activities needed to accomplish the public health goals of
the Tobacco Control Act. By the end of fiscal year 2011, the CTP had a
staffing level of over 230 FTEs, and the Center anticipates meeting
projected staffing goals in fiscal year 2013.
The fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Tobacco Program,
including resources for CTP, is $505 million, an increase of $28
million above the fiscal year 2012 enacted budget. The amount requested
is specifically authorized in the Tobacco Control Act and comprised
entirely of tobacco user fees. Fiscal year 2013 priorities include
protecting youth from tobacco, encouraging current users to quit, and
making existing tobacco products less harmful.
Other New User Fee Proposals
Cosmetics User Fee.--The proposed cosmetic user fee of $18.7
million will strengthen FDA efforts to protect public health by
preventing harm to consumers, ensuring the safety of cosmetics and
removing unsafe cosmetics from the market. With this fee revenue, FDA
will develop necessary guidance and standards for industry. The fee
revenue will also allow FDA to identify research gaps, such as gaps
related to the safety of novel ingredients used in cosmetics.
Medical Product Reinspection User Fee.--The FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act, which Congress enacted in December 2010, authorized
fees for reinspections of food and feed establishments. FDA is
proposing to expand this fee authority to medical product
establishments. With this change, medical product establishments will
pay the full cost of reinspections and associated follow-up work. FDA
will impose the user fee when FDA reinspects facilities due to a
failure to meet Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) or other important
FDA requirements. The fiscal year 2013 estimate for medical product
reinspection user fees is $14.7 million.
Food Contact Notification User Fee.--FDA has statutory
responsibility for the safety of all food contact substances in the
United States. The Food Contact Notification (FCN) program supports
applications for innovative food contact substances that help mitigate
microbial food contamination and provide consumers with more healthful
and safe food choices. The proposed user fees of $4.9 million will
support FDA efforts to increase the availability of safe food contact
substances, to prevent unsafe food contact substances from reaching the
market and to apply the most modern regulatory science to the review of
food contact substances.
International Courier Use Fee.--For fiscal year 2013, FDA is
proposing a new International Courier User Fee of $5.6 million. The
proposed fee will support activities associated with increased
surveillance of FDA-regulated commodities at express courier hubs. To
address the growing volume of imports entering through international
couriers, FDA is proposing to pay the increased cost of its
international courier activities through user fees.
CONCLUSION
The resources in this budget will allow FDA to perform its
fundamental public health responsibilities in new and more efficient
ways. Our budget also supports industry efforts to innovate and bring
new products to market that will benefit American patients and
consumers and strengthen our economy.
My goal with this proposed fiscal year 2013 budget is to position
FDA to seize these opportunities. The resources in this budget will
allow FDA to perform its core public health responsibilities in more
efficient ways, to address these and the many other challenges at the
heart of our mission. This budget also supports industry efforts to
innovate and bring new products to market that will benefit American
patients and consumers and strengthen our economy.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer your
questions.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Dr. Hamburg. The vote has been, at
least for a while, postponed. So we'll just----
Dr. Hamburg. Oh, okay.
Senator Kohl [continuing]. Start out with our questions.
Dr. Hamburg. Excellent.
FOOD SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT
Senator Kohl. Dr. Hamburg, this budget request assumes $220
million in additional funding that theoretically would be used
to implement to the Food Safety Modernization Act. However, as
you said, that funding increase would come in the form of a new
user fee that has already been rejected by the Congress and
that essentially has no chance of being authorized this year.
So what that really means is that this budget doesn't
include any funding increase to implement the Food Safety
Modernization Act, which is of great concern to many of us. How
have you been working with both the Congress and the industry
in order to get these user fees authorized?
Dr. Hamburg. It is extremely important, as you note, to
continue to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act, which
gives us a chance to really reorient our whole food safety
system towards preventing problems before they occur, rather
than addressing them after the fact, which will have huge
benefits both in terms of human health and reducing costs to
the healthcare system, to the workplace, and to industry.
We are talking with industry about the importance of this
work. They understand it. These are difficult, challenging
economic times, however. We all recognize that. And we are, of
course, working with other potential partners as we implement
the Food Safety Modernization Act. We have made progress. We
will continue to make progress, but we will have to prioritize
in the context of reduced resources, and it will mean that we
cannot accomplish all of the goals of the Food Safety
Modernization Act, and I think it will mean that,
unfortunately, we will not be able to put in place systems that
would prevent disease and economic burdens as well.
But we hope that, though the process may take more time
than we would like, we will continue to make progress in terms
of the implementation of user fees. It's not inappropriate, I
think, when you look at the common good, the benefits to
industry, as well as the benefits to the public, that support
for this program be a shared responsibility. We've seen the
benefits of user fees with our drug user fees and more recently
the device user fees, and I do believe that when you look at
the amount of resources available to support food safety in
this country, we clearly need to do more.
Senator Kohl. But your budget assumes $220 million
necessary to discharge your responsibilities, but to be raised
in the form of user fees which, let's be honest, isn't going to
happen this year--$220 million. How do you propose to even come
close to discharging your responsibilities without that $220
million?
Dr. Hamburg. As I said, we are going to have to make very
difficult choices. We are not going to be able to do all the
things the Congress has asked us to do and that the American
people expect us to do. We will place our emphasis and our
resources on the highest priority issues. We do need to respond
to the challenges of globalization and start to really ensure
that import safety system--we will be taking more risk-based
approaches so that we're targeting resources where the greatest
need is, where the greatest risk is. We'll be working with
States. We'd hoped to have resources to actually give to States
as we build those partnerships for an integrated food safety
system. That will be less possible, but we will have to find
ways to work with State health and agriculture departments.
And we will have to work closely with industry and they
will have to fully step up to the plate as partners. This is
going to be a very, very challenging budget to implement and it
will put very difficult choices in front of the Commissioner
and her team.
GENERICS
Senator Kohl. All right. One question on generics, then
I'll turn to Senator Blunt. This budget request assumes the
collection of $299 million in new user fees for approval of new
generic drugs. Assuming these fees are authorized--and we are
more optimistic in this case that they will be, as you know--
how long will it take to eliminate the backlog of generic drug
applications that could immediately then be marketed?
Dr. Hamburg. This is such an exciting and important
opportunity to really move the generics program and its proven
benefits to the next level. At the present time, we have
unacceptable lags in the review of generic drugs, and we're
also faced with the increasing challenge that so many of the
manufacturers of generic drugs or components of generic drugs
are overseas and we really have to level the playing field in
terms of domestic and overseas inspections.
This user fee will enable us to do both. We've committed to
reducing the review lag, which currently it takes an average of
30 months to review a generic application. We're going to bring
that down to 10 months. We're committed to doing that in the 5-
year span of this user fee program. And we also have committed
to having equity between domestic and foreign inspections over
that same time period.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much.
Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, chairman.
Commissioner, on the $220 million of additional fees, in
that fee category what's produced now in the current fees, and
the ones that expire at the end of this fiscal year? You have
fees that expire at the end of this year. What do they produce?
Dr. Hamburg. The fees that would expire in September of
this year are the drug user fees.
Senator Blunt. The drug fees.
Dr. Hamburg. And the medical device user fees.
Senator Blunt. So you have no fees in the food safety
issue, right?
Dr. Hamburg. We don't have an establishment fee, which is
what is being recommended in this budget at the current time,
no.
REINSPECTION FEE
Senator Blunt. What kind of fees do you----
Dr. Hamburg. There's one very small fee, which I have to
turn to--reinspection. There's a reinspection fee in the food
safety program.
Senator Blunt. And the reinspection fee----
Dr. Hamburg. But it's a very small amount of money and it's
for after there have been problems in a facility and we go back
in and reinspect to see if they've been corrected.
Senator Blunt. So with that exception, there are no fees--
--
Dr. Hamburg. Right.
Senator Blunt [continuing]. Now, where you're proposing the
$220 million in fees?
Dr. Hamburg. Yes.
Senator Blunt. Would that be the same for the cosmetics?
Are there fees there now?
Dr. Hamburg. That's correct, there is not a cosmetics fee.
Senator Blunt. And that's $18 million?
Dr. Hamburg. $18.7 million, I think, yes.
Senator Blunt. And what would the potential collection cost
of that $18 million be?
Dr. Hamburg. I think that the----
Senator Blunt. To put the fee in place and to collect it,
however you would collect that fee?
Dr. Hamburg. Having built a very robust infrastructure to
deal with user fees in other components of FDA, I think we can
move very quickly and efficiently to establish the user fee
collection mechanism. It is important that it is done properly
with the right safeguards and firewalls. But we do know how to
do that now. We have 20 years of experience on the drug user
fee side. So I think the greater challenge is sitting at the
table and negotiating to achieve those user fee agreements.
COSMETICS
Senator Blunt. Do you know what the average fee might be
for the various categories of cosmetics producers, medium,
small, or large? Do you have a sense of how this impacts the
industry?
Dr. Hamburg. I think we would have to sit down and really
talk about the different strategies for approaching it and what
would be the most appropriate way to structure the fee system
so that there would be the greatest benefit to the industry and
it would align with the kinds of demands on our time and
resources.
Senator Blunt. So would that mean you haven't decided yet
whether it would just apply to a finished product or have a fee
during the entire production chain of cosmetics? I assume they
get things----
Dr. Hamburg. Yes, I think it would very likely be modeled
on some of the other fees in terms of registration of
establishments. But it is a different regulatory framework than
for drugs. For example, where there's a pre-approval process
with cosmetics, our legal regulatory responsibilities have to
do with monitoring for safety issues and is really not focused
on the pre-approval, so it wouldn't follow the exact kind of
model of other user fees in existence today.
CHINA
Senator Blunt. And the China inspection issue, would that
be fee-based also, or would you propose some inspections in
China?
Dr. Hamburg. Yes, the China proposal is really to enable us
to enhance our inspectional capacity and our presence on the
ground in China, as well as to enhance our risk-based analytics
and our strategies for our operations in China. But it would be
building on existing activities. We'd be expanding our
inspectional cadre in China by 16 people and correspondingly
increasing the numbers of inspections in both food and drug.
But it would not be part of our user fee program.
Senator Blunt. So it's paid for out of regular taxpayer
dollars?
Dr. Hamburg. Yes.
Senator Blunt. So these Chinese companies wouldn't pay for
their inspection?
Dr. Hamburg. No.
Senator Blunt. Obviously, you'd have to agree that their
products are going to have to go through this regimen for them
to be allowed to come into the country?
Dr. Hamburg. Right. If we are approving a new drug in this
country, we need to inspect to make sure that, if it's being
manufactured in another country, that the manufacturing meets
our standards and requirements. If we are bringing a food
product into this country, we need to inspect the facility to
make sure that it's being made according to good manufacturing
practice and meets our safety quality standards.
So it would be to enable us to expand work that is under
way in China. But you can imagine, based on the huge increase
in imports of the FDA-regulated products that I noted, that we
are extremely hard-pressed to be able to even begin to do the
range of inspections that really are important to assuring
safety and quality to the American people.
Senator Blunt. But under your proposal for food or
cosmetics, as an example, either one, that would still be paid
out of your taxpayer-funded budget. That's not in the fee
proposal, the China inspection?
Dr. Hamburg. The China inspections are going to be focused
on food and drug inspections in China, building on a framework
that already exists. We do have offices now in Shanghai,
Beijing, and Guangzhou and are doing inspections out of those
offices, and also working with our counterpart regulatory
authorities in China and industry that's based in China, either
Chinese industries or United States companies, but that are
manufacturing in China.
So that $10 million will enable us to expand our capacity
in ways that are very, very crucial.
Senator Blunt. I guess the point that I'm trying to get
established for myself is that we would still fund that effort
on food, for instance, like we always have, but we would under
your proposal have a fee for food inspection for U.S. companies
in the United States, which I'd be reluctant to do. But we can
visit about that later.
Dr. Hamburg. What we're trying to do is really create an
integrated program that is supported by both budget authority
and user fees. In negotiating the user fees, we would be very
explicit about how those user fee dollars would be used as part
of this broader program. But they would not be siloed programs
in terms of impact----
Senator Blunt. But the user fees wouldn't be paid by the
foreign companies. They'd be paid by U.S. companies, unless the
foreign companies were producing in the United States?
Dr. Hamburg. The user fees would be paid by the
establishment that was manufacturing a product----
Senator Blunt. In the United States?
Dr. Hamburg. No. They could also be if you were
manufacturing anything that would be FDA-regulated, foreign or
domestic.
Senator Blunt. So the Chinese company might pay the user
fee if it was in China?
Dr. Hamburg. Yes, yes.
Senator Blunt. Okay, okay. That's the one point.
Dr. Hamburg. No, I'm sorry I wasn't clear. But the $10
million we're asking for now is to enhance our ability to
inspect the facilities that are manufacturing goods that are
FDA-regulated for export into the United States from China.
MENU LABELING
Senator Blunt. Let me ask a couple of questions about
probably the issue that we've gotten the most questions about
of anything you're doing this year, which didn't maybe sound
all that hard going in, but probably has turned out to be
pretty complicated. And that's menu labeling. So if I
understand the rule you've got out, on places where restaurant-
type food is not the predominant part of the business, this
would be certainly grocery stores that might have a food area,
one of your options is that they wouldn't be subject to the
rule. I think that's option two under your proposed rule.
That's how I understand that, that that is one option you
believe you have available.
Dr. Hamburg. Yes. We put forward some draft proposed rule
format for comments that included some of the different
strategies that could be undertaken. As you note, it has proved
very complicated, how you define a restaurant-like
establishment and a standard menu. And we have gone out to get
comment on the different approaches that could be used for
defining the universe of restaurant-like establishments and
what should be labeled and how. And we are now in the process
of responding to the comments that we've gotten. We got a lot
of comments and they covered the waterfront in terms of
perspectives on these issues, and we will be coming forward
with a final rule in the near future.
Senator Blunt. As I said in my opening comment, I would
certainly be as flexible as you think the law allows you to be
here, because there's lots of difficulty, it seems to me, in
implementing this, particularly if it's not the principal thing
you do, if it truly is arguably incidental to what you do. And
the food options vary so much from one of the grocery stores
you own to another grocery store you may own because of what's
available that day or how the food counters are operated. I
would encourage that.
MENU BOARDS
The other two questions that I had that I'd like you to
comment on at least, one is the drive-through menu board; what
do you think that might entail? And what about places where--I
read somewhere in some information I had that Domino's Pizza,
that 90 percent of the customers never, never come into a
location. So for 90 percent of the customers, they're not going
to see what's on the menu board anyway. Is there some
understanding that that's a different environment? Do you want
them to comply in a different way or do you want them to doubly
comply, something on the Web site and something else on a wall
that nobody sees? Or what are you thinking there?
Dr. Hamburg. As I mentioned, we are finalizing the rule
that will go forward, so I can't speak to specific details
because it's still being discussed and worked through. But in
terms of what was sort of put forward in the legislation was
the recognition that there were different types of
establishments, but how consumers access menus would be the
place for communicating the information.
So if you have a storefront, but that isn't where consumers
come in to order their pizza, it wouldn't make sense to require
a menu board that no one would ever see. But if there's a menu
that's on the Internet, that would certainly be an appropriate
place, or a flyer that would be distributed, whatever, and the
same with drive-through food establishments. Where there is a
menu board that you look at to make your decisions, that would
probably be the most appropriate place to have the
communication as to calorie content of what's on the menu.
But with respect to all of the specifics, it is still in
discussion, and we got across the range of different types of
establishments a lot of suggestions about different ways to
make information available so that it would be most consumer-
friendly and-or least burdensome to the industries involved.
Senator Blunt. My last question is, where I read
``nutritional content'' does that mean calories or does that
mean a lot more than calories, as you comply with this?
Dr. Hamburg. As I remember, calories was what was clearly
indicated for posting with a requirement to indicate that
additional nutritional information----
Senator Blunt. Is available?
Dr. Hamburg [continuing]. Would be made available on
request from the consumer.
Senator Blunt. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Senator Brown.
Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
KV PHARMACEUTICAL
Thank you, first of all, for your decisive action a year
ago on the Makena drug, the progesterone made by KV
Pharmaceutical, when they took what was a compound, priced it
$10 to $20 per injection, and a woman, a pregnant woman, needed
about 20 injections, as you know, in the course of the
treatment, and after getting FDA approval jacked the price up
to $1,500. Some would say they overreached. Others would say
they were greedy.
Your action was important. However, some things have
happened that I think demand more attention. As you instructed
compounding pharmacies to keep compounding and not to respond
to the cease and desist order, it was a real public health
victory that you caused. So thank you for that.
Recently, KV Pharmaceutical--and it's pretty incredible
behavior, a company that astounds me in its behavior and
interaction with its patients--claimed that it collected
contaminated samples of the compounded versions of the drug and
asked the FDA to investigate. I am pretty amazed how they did
it, what they did, but they did. This investigation and the
length of it has caused some doctors to be reluctant in
prescribing the compound, causing, I would be pretty certain,
some women not to get the medication, which means a higher
rate, I don't have evidence of that, but I assume--a higher
rate of low-birth-weight babies or, second, great expense to
insurance companies and taxpayers.
So my question is, what are you doing in this? Are you
aware of this slowdown in prescriptions that we're told about,
and what are you doing to speed up this investigation so we can
put this behind us, so that women who are at high-risk of low-
birth-weight babies get access to this drug for $300 or $400
instead, or this progesterone for $300 or $400, instead of--
well, they dropped the price from $1,500 to $690. That was
really kind of them, so it's only $20,000 instead of $30,000.
What are you doing to fix this public health hazard?
Dr. Hamburg. When we do get a report, wherever it comes
from, of a potential public health concern regarding an
activity that we regulate, we take it very seriously and we do
follow up. So we are in the process of an inspection, an
investigation of the concerns that were raised. Obviously, we
need to do this based on more than just reports, especially if
the reports come from----
Senator Brown. The manufacturer.
Dr. Hamburg [continuing]. The manufacturer.
However, it is an ongoing investigation and I can't really
report on details of findings or timing. I have not been made
aware of concerns that during this process that there has been
a decline in access to the therapeutic intervention overall.
And I will go back and look at that.
Senator Brown. We'll compile what information we can.
Dr. Hamburg. Okay.
Senator Brown. Some in the medical community have told us
that the number of prescriptions has slowed as a result of the
fear that doctors have because this company has made
accusations that certainly serve its financial interest. Maybe
they're true. I understand you have that responsibility. But
you have a responsibility to move as quickly as you can in this
case because it's clearly a huge public health threat. Okay,
thank you.
IMPORTED DRUGS
Second group of questions. Tainted heparin from China--and
I want to follow up on some things that Senator Blunt asked
about--in 2008 it killed 100 people in this country, including,
I believe--around the world; I'm not sure--including 3 people
from Toledo, Ohio. In 2007-2008, melamine was found in pet food
and in infant formula in China. I've heard recently, in the
last year, from a number of dog owners who lost their animals
as a result, their beloved animals, as a result of tainted
chicken treats from China.
More recently, the identity and safety of imported fish has
become a growing concern, a recurring concern also. You know
the importance of this. You've asked for $10 million in your
budget, as you pointed out to Senator Blunt and he pointed out,
16 new full-time employees, 7 food safety inspectors, including
7 new safety inspectors and 9 drug safety--7 food, 9 drug
safety.
This is a huge problem. There is no way, when you look at--
my understanding is it would take the FDA 9 years to perform
one inspection at the high-priority pharmaceutical facilities
in China and 13 years to inspect all of the foreign-based
pharmaceutical manufacturing plants.
Understand $10 million is important. The inspectors are
important. But isn't the goal to make the companies that import
these drugs--I don't care if they're American companies or if
they're French companies or Chinese companies that are selling
into the American market. Shouldn't your goal be to make them
personally responsible?
I mean, if a chief executive officer (CEO) is not certain
where all the ingredients come from, and those ingredients
coming from wherever end up killing a patient in Toledo,
shouldn't that CEO go to jail? Shouldn't that CEO, that
company, be fined huge amounts of money?
We'll never be able to inspect every place in China. What
do we do about this? Come up with something more creative than
begging the Congress for $10 million so we can sprinkle a few
food inspectors and safety and pharmaceutical inspectors in a
country of 1.3 billion. Come up with something----
Dr. Hamburg. I want to reassure you that, number one, this
is a huge priority for us and we have a multifaceted program.
The $10 million is a small drop in the bucket of what our
overall needs are. We do believe that we have to have a
strategy that rally increases standards and accountability in
the countries of manufacture, that increases the ability for us
to work with other regulatory authorities to share information,
because many countries are facing the same challenge. We need
to really carve up the landscape.
We need to also target our inspectional resources more
efficiently so that they can be extended further. And of
course, we have to continue our border import safety activities
as well, but do it in a more risk-based way.
Senator Brown. I'm going to interrupt. I'm sorry,
Commissioner. Is there any way to do these inspections, short
of threatening legal action--and I don't care about, I really
don't care about a CEO going to jail or I don't care about a
huge fine against the companies. I want these companies to be
responsible for their ingredients. Is there any way to do that
short of some legal process?
FOREIGN IMPORTER
Dr. Hamburg. Yes. And in fact, the Congress has helped us
in that domain. The Food Safety Modernization Act included a
component for foreign importer verification and really puts a
requirement on people that are bringing products into this
country to verify that they were manufactured in compliance
with our standards.
Senator Brown. And if the ingredients have shown to be
contaminated and cost lives, what is the legal resource for a
consumer or a family or a country?
ENFORCEMENT
Dr. Hamburg. I think on the drugs side there's legislation
that's currently being considered to give us additional
authorities to be able to act and enforce. On the food side, we
have been able to achieve more of the tools and authorities
that we need. It still is a real problem to take enforcement
action proactively in another country, and I think it does
speak to the fact that we need to continue to work, as we are,
making this a very important area of focus within the FDA, to
really----
Senator Brown. I understand that. But for 100 years in this
country, from the creation of the FDA after Upton Sinclair's
book, we have worked hard to protect public health and protect
food safety and pharmaceutical and drug safety. And just
because the company--you don't have jurisdiction in another
country doesn't mean that they should have access to our
markets unless those companies, the importer or the company,
whoever it is that's bringing it in, that they should have
ultimate liability for that.
Mr. Chairman, if I could go one other short set of
questions. Thank you.
Dr. Hamburg. I just want to tell you that this is a huge
priority, and it's one that we talk about every day in terms of
we as a Nation have to really address this. FDA is at the
cutting edge of much of this in terms of responding to the
challenges of globalization. At the present time, we don't have
the tools and authorities that we fully need to achieve that,
nor do we have the resources.
Senator Brown. I respect you. I've watched your career. I'm
not convinced yet that you are aggressive enough.
On the question of drug shortages, thank you for your work
on that. Thank you for the comments from the chairman.
REPACKAGING
On the issues of repackaging, we sent you a letter about
repackaging within a specific hospital. They get 15 vials of
drug X, they break it into 5 packages of 3 each to treat a
patient, that they're able to repackage and use those, helping
to perhaps preclude a drug shortage. I sent you a letter
suggesting we do that. We will follow up with some legislative
language.
The letter that you sent back to us yesterday was to us
inconclusive. I mean, Erin in my office, it wasn't clear to her
in reading it that that was a very specific answer. I'd just
like to ask you to work with us on the whole repackaging issue,
because that can preclude some of these drug shortages.
Dr. Hamburg. I'd be happy to work with you. I think that
actually some of the restrictions have to do with other
components of HHS activity, and we need to work----
Senator Brown. We'll work with you.
Thank you.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Brown.
Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you to you
and to the ranking member.
ANTIBIOTICS--LIVESTOCK
Commissioner, I'm pleased by your presence here today.
Recently the FDA-issued guidance concerning antibiotic use by
farmers and ranchers in regard to their livestock. Was that
guidance based upon peer-reviewed science? The second question
is: Would you provide this subcommittee with the science on
which that guidance was based?
Dr. Hamburg. Certainly. We did review an enormous amount of
literature over quite a long period of looking at these
questions. We also worked very closely with all of the critical
stakeholders as we move toward putting forward that guidance,
which is to restrict the use of antibiotics for growth
promotion and feed enhancement purposes. We actually got a lot
of support in both the analytic work for that and in the
determination to go forward from our colleagues in animal and
veterinary health, and the pharmaceutical manufacturers
involved also, I think, believe that the world has changed
considerably and we now know a great deal about the impact of
injudicious use of antibiotics and the development of
antibiotic resistance, that we as a Nation and as a global
community are facing a very, very serious public health
challenge with respect to antibiotic resistance and that this
can make a real difference in order to really reduce this
public health threat to both humans and animals with respect to
ensuring that we have antibiotics that work.
Senator Moran. I think you were suggesting that there is
broad consensus to back up, in the industry, both the users and
the scientific community, to support the guidance that you have
issued.
Dr. Hamburg. Nothing we do ever has consensus, but we did
work hard to listen to the concerns of all of the stakeholders
and address them.
Senator Moran. Is it related to the use? When you talk
about use for growth, I assume that's as compared to treating
disease and infection?
Dr. Hamburg. Correct.
Senator Moran. Did the guidance have any implications on
that use of antibiotics?
Dr. Hamburg. Not for treating disease. We do believe that
these antibiotics, just as in human populations, antibiotics
are used under prescription and guidance of medical
professionals, that veterinary professionals should be
overseeing the appropriate use for treatment of disease.
Senator Moran. Commissioner, would you work with my staff
to give us----
Dr. Hamburg. Certainly.
Senator Moran [continuing]. A summary of the scientific
basis for that guidance?
Dr. Hamburg. Certainly.
[The information follows:]
Questions regarding the use of antimicrobial drugs in food-
producing animals have been raised and debated for many years. A
variety of recognized international, governmental, and professional
organizations have studied the issue. Within the FDA Guidance for
Industry No. 209, ``The Judicious Use of Medically Important
Antimicrobial Drugs in Food-Producing Animals,'' we have briefly
summarized the findings and recommendations from some of the notable
reports that have addressed this issue over the past 40 years. These
reports provide context to FDA's current thinking on this issue and
highlight the longstanding concerns that have been the subject of
discussion in the scientific community as a whole.
We acknowledge that a significant body of scientific information
exists, including some information that may present equivocal findings
or contrary views. However, below is a list of some of the scientific
literature that FDA considered in developing this guidance, including
some key reports and peer-reviewed literature. This list is not
intended to represent an exhaustive summary of the scientific
literature but rather to highlight some of the more recent scientific
research related to the use of antimicrobial drugs in animal
agriculture and the impact of such use on antimicrobial resistance.
--1. 1969 Report of the Joint Committee on the Use of Antibiotics in
Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine.
--2. 1970 FDA Task Force Report, ``The Use of Antibiotics in Animal
Feed.''
--3. 1980 National Academy of Sciences Report, ``The Effects on Human
Health of Subtherapeutic Use of Antimicrobial Drugs in Animal
Feeds.''
--4. 1984 Seattle-King County Study: ``Surveillance of the Flow of
Salmonella and Campylobacter in a Community.''
--5. 1988 Institute of Medicine (IOM) Report: ``Human Health Risks
with the Subtherapeutic Use of Penicillin or Tetracyclines in
Animal Feed.''
--6. 1997 World Health Organization (WHO) Report, ``The Medical
Impact of Antimicrobial Use in Food Animals.'' http://
whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1997/WHO_EMC_ZOO_97.4.pdf
--7. 1999 National Research Council (NRC) Report: ``The Use of Drugs
in Food Animals--Benefits and Risks.''
--8. 1999 United States Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Report--``Food Safety: The Agricultural Use of Antibiotics and
Its Implications for Human Health.'' http://www.gao.gov/
archive/1999/rc99074.pdf
--9. 1999 European Commission Report, ``Opinion of the Scientific
Steering Committee on Antimicrobial Resistance.'' http://
ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/ssc/out50_en.pdf
--10. 2000 World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Consultation: ``WHO
Global Principles for the Containment of Antimicrobial
Resistance in Animals Intended for Food.'' http://
whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2000/WHO_CDS_CSR_APH_
2000.4.pdf
--11. 2003 Report, ``Joint FAO/OIE/WHO Expert Workshop on Non-Human
Antimicrobial Usage and Antimicrobial Resistance: Scientific
assessment.'' http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/micro/
en/amr.pdf
--12. 2003 Institute of Medicine (IOM) Report, ``Microbial Threats to
Health: Emergence, Detection and Response.''
--13. 2004 Report, ``Second Joint FAO/OIE/WHO Expert Workshop on Non-
Human Antimicrobial Usage and Antimicrobial Resistance:
Management options.'' http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/
Conferences_Events/docs/pdf/WHO-CDS-CPE-ZFK-2004.8.pdf
--14. 2004 United States Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Report--``Antibiotic Resistance: Federal Agencies Need to
Better Focus Efforts to Address Risks to Humans from Antibiotic
Use in Animals.'' http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04490.pdf
--15. 2005 Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), ``Code of Practice
to Minimize and Contain Antimicrobial Resistance.'' http://
www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/10213/CXP_061e.pdf
--16. 2006 Antimicrobial Resistance: Implications for the Food
System, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety,
Vol. 5, 2006.
--17. 2009. American Academy of Microbiology. Antibiotic Resistance:
An Ecological Perspective on an Old Problem. 1752 N Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20036, (http://www.asm.org).
--18. 2011. Tackling antibiotic resistance from a food safety
perspective in Europe. World Health Organization (WHO),
Regional Office for Europe Scherfigsvej 8, DK-2100 Copenhagen
;, Denmark. http://www.euro.who.int/data/assets/pdf_file/0005/
136454/e94889.pdf
--19. 2008. Longitudinal study of antimicrobial resistance among
Escherichia coli isolates from integrated multisite cohorts of
humans and swine. Alali WQ, Scott HM, Harvey RB, Norby B,
Lawhorn DB, Pillai SD. Appl Environ Microbiol. 74(12):3672-81.
--20. 2008. Diversity and distribution of commensal fecal Escherichia
coli bacteria in beef cattle administered selected
subtherapeutic antimicrobials in a feedlot setting. Sharma R,
Munns K, Alexander T, Entz T, Mirzaagha P, Yanke LJ, Mulvey M,
Topp E, McAllister T. Appl Environ Microbiol. 74(20):6178-86.
--21. 2008. Effect of subtherapeutic administration of antibiotics on
the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant Escherichia coli
bacteria in feedlot cattle. Alexander, T.W., L.J. Yanke, E.
Topp, M.E. Olson, R.R. Read, D.W. Morck, and T.A. McAllister.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 74:4405-4416.
--22. 2009. A metagenomic approach for determining prevalence of
tetracycline resistance genes in the fecal flora of
conventionally raised feedlot steers and feedlot steers raised
without antimicrobials. Harvey, R., J. Funk, T.E. Wittum, and
A.E. Hoet. American Journal of Veterinary Research. 70:198-202.
--23. 2009. Association between tetracycline consumption and
tetracycline resistance in Escherichia coli from healthy Danish
slaughter pigs. Vieira, A.R., H. Houe, H.C. Wegener, D.M. Lo Fo
Wong, and H.D. Emborg. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. 6:99-
109.
--24. 2009. Associations between reported on-farm antimicrobial use
practices and observed antimicrobial resistance in generic
fecal Escherichia coli isolated from Alberta finishing swine
farms. Varga C., A. Rajic, M.E. McFall, R.J. Reid-Smith, A.E.
Deckert, S.L. Checkley, and S.A. McEwen. Preventive Veterinary
Medicine. 88:185-192.
--25. 2010. Farm-to-fork characterization of Escherichia coli
associated with feedlot cattle with a known history of
antimicrobial use. Alexander, T.W., G.D. Inglis, L.J. Yanke, E.
Topp, R.R. Read, T. Reuter, and T.A. McAllister. International
Journal of Food Microbiology. 137:40-48.
--26. 2011. Lower prevalence of antibiotic-resistant Enterococci on
U.S. conventional poultry farms that transitioned to organic
practices. Sapkota AR, Hulet RM, Zhang G, McDermott P, Kinney
EL, Schwab KJ, Joseph SW. Environ Health Perspect.
119(11):1622-8.
--27. 2011. Association between antimicrobial resistance in
Escherichia coli isolates from food animals and blood stream
isolates from humans in Europe: an ecological study. Foodborne
Pathogens and Disease. Vieira, A.R., P. Collignon, F.M.
Aarestrup, S.A. McEwen, R.S. Hendriksen, T. Hald, and H.C.
Wegener. 8:1295-1301.
--28. 2011. Distribution and characterization of ampicillin- and
tetracycline-resistant Escherichia coli from feedlot cattle fed
subtherapeutic antimicrobials. Mirzaagha P, Louie M, Sharma R,
Yanke LJ, Topp E, McAllister TA. BMC Microbiol. 19;11:78.
--29. 2012. In-feed antibiotic effects on the swine intestinal
microbiome. Looft, T., T.A. Johnson, H.K. Allen, D.O. Bayles,
D.P. Alt, R.D. Stedtfeld, W.J. Sul, T.M. Stedtfeld, B. Chai,
J.R. Cole, S.A. Hashsham, J.M. Tiedje, and T.B. Stanton.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 109:1691-
1696.
In addition, FDA also considered a number of other studies that
were referenced by the Department of Health and Human Services in
response to the 2004 United States Government Accountability Office
(GAO) report entitled, ``Antibiotic Resistance: Federal Agencies Need
to Better Focus Efforts to Address Risks to Humans from Antibiotic Use
in Animals'':
--1. Phillips I, Casewell M, Cox T, et al. Does the use of
antibiotics in food animals pose a risk to human health? A
critical review of published data. J Antimicrob Chemother,
2004;53:28-52.
--2. Holmberg SD, Wells JG, Cohen ML. Animal-to-man transmission of
antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella: investigations of U.S.
outbreaks, 1971-1983. Science, 1984; 225:833-5.
--3. Holmberg SD, Solomon SL, Blake PA. Health and economic impacts
of antimicrobial resistance. Rev Infect Dis, 1987; 9:1065-78.
--4. Lee LA, Puhr ND, Maloney K, et al. Increase in antimicrobial-
resistant Salmonella infections in the United States, 1989-
1990. J Infect Dis, 1994; 170:128-34.
--5. Varma J, M
Source: FCA's FIRS Ratings Database. The above chart includes only the
System banks and their affiliated direct-lender associations. The
figures in the bars reflect the number of institutions by FIRS rating.
The Agency uses the Financial Institution Rating System (FIRS) to
assess the safety and soundness of each FCS institution. The system
provides a framework of component and composite ratings to help
examiners evaluate significant financial, asset quality, and management
factors. FIRS ratings range from 1 for a sound institution to 5 for an
institution that is likely to fail. As the chart above indicates, the
System remains financially strong overall. Institutions are well
capitalized, and the FCS does not pose material risk to investors in
FCS debt, the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, or to FCS
institution stockholders.
Although the System's condition and performance remain satisfactory
overall, several institutions are experiencing stress and now require
special supervision and enforcement actions. Factors causing the stress
include weaknesses in the Nation's economy and credit markets, a
rapidly changing risk environment in certain agricultural segments,
and, in certain cases, management's ineffective response to these
risks. We have increased supervisory oversight at a number of
institutions and dedicated additional resources in particular to those
13 institutions rated 3 or worse. Although these institutions represent
about 2 percent of System assets and do not meaningfully affect the
System's consolidated performance, they require significantly greater
Agency resources to oversee. As of December 31, 2011, seven FCS
institutions were under formal enforcement action, but no FCS
institutions are in conservatorship or receivership.
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 is committed to
developing balanced, flexible, and legally sound regulations. Current
regulatory and policy projects include the following:
--Revising regulations to implement the requirements of the Dodd-
Frank Act;
--Revising regulations to ensure that FCS funding and liquidity
requirements are appropriate and to ensure that the discounts
applied to investments reflect their marketability;
--Revising regulations to require that each FCS institution's
business plan includes strategies and actions to serve all
creditworthy and eligible persons in the institution's
territory and to achieve diversity and inclusion in its
workforce and marketplace;
--Enhancing our risk-based capital adequacy framework to make it more
consistent with the Basel Accord and with that of other Federal
financial regulating authorities;
--Revising regulations to enhance System disclosures and compliance
requirements for executive compensation, pension, and other
benefit programs;
--Strengthening investment-management regulations to ensure that
prudent practices are in place for the safe and sound
management of FCS investment portfolios;
--Revising regulations to provide guidance on the statutory and
regulatory authority related to rural community investments;
--Revising regulations to provide the parameters under which an FCS
institution may organize or invest in LLCs, LLPs, and other
unincorporated business entities;
--Clarifying and strengthening standards-of-conduct regulations; and
--Revising regulations related to FCS bank and association mergers
and consolidations.
Corporate Activities.--Because of mergers, the number of FCS
institutions has declined over the years, but their complexity has
increased, placing 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. Thus far in
fiscal year 2012, two banks have merged, and two associations have
merged. In addition, a new service corporation was chartered. As of
January 1, 2012, the System had 83 direct-lender associations, four
banks, six service corporations, and two special-purpose entities.
CONDITION OF THE FARM CREDIT SYSTEM
The System remained fundamentally safe and sound in 2011 and is
well positioned to withstand the continuing challenges affecting the
general economy and agriculture. Total capital increased to $35.9
billion at September 30, 2011, up from $33.0 billion a year earlier. In
addition, more than 81 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 15.8 percent at September 30,
2011, compared with 15.0 percent the year before, as strong earnings
allowed the System to continue to grow its capital base.
Because of stronger agricultural profits, which reduced the need
for farmers to borrow, the System experienced slower loan growth. In
total, gross loans grew by 1.3 percent over the 12-month period ended
September 30, 2011, compared with 3.9 percent during the previous
period. Nonperforming loans decreased modestly to $3.3 billion at the
end of fiscal year 2011, representing 9.2 percent of total capital,
down from 11.3 percent a year earlier. However, although credit quality
has been improving and is satisfactory overall, volatility in commodity
prices, rising input prices, and weaknesses in the general economy pose
continued risks to some agricultural operators, creating the potential
for a reversal of this trend.
The FCS earned $3.0 billion in the first 9 months of 2011, a 13.7
percent increase from the same period in 2010. Return on assets
remained favorable at 1.7 percent. The System's liquidity position
increased from 172 days as of September 30, 2010, to 200 days a year
later, remaining significantly above the 90-day regulatory minimum. The
quality of the System's liquidity reserves also improved in 2011.
Further strengthening the System's financial condition is the Farm
Credit Insurance Fund, which holds almost $3.4 billion. Administered by
the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, this fund protects
investors in Systemwide consolidated debt obligations.
U.S. agriculture just experienced back-to-back years of exceptional
profitability. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates,
combined net farm income for 2010 and 2011 is 23 percent higher than
for 2008 and 2009. Higher farm incomes reflect rising prices for key
crops. However, farm prosperity has not been uniform--because of high
feed costs, profits were lower for livestock producers than for crop
producers. Despite continued financial stress among certain livestock
enterprises, such as dairy, farm finances were generally strong going
into 2012. While many farmers have significantly increased capital
investments, they have done so using excess cash and limited their use
of credit. For those farmers borrowing money, they are paying some of
the lowest interest rates of their lifetime.
U.S. farm incomes for 2012 may well hinge on the ability of farmers
across the globe to expand production enough to alleviate tight world
stocks of key crops. Greatly improved weather and higher plantings
could turn shortages of key crops such as corn and soybeans into
surpluses quickly, thus causing prices to fall. Meanwhile, future world
economic growth and, hence, food demand, remains uncertain, as does the
exchange value of the dollar and government policies that affect
agriculture and energy. As a result, commodity prices will probably
remain volatile.
An increasing risk to the farm sector's financial health is the
persistent rise in production costs. The surge in farmland prices and
rental rates have driven production costs even higher, especially over
the past 2 years. This is most notable in the Midwest where corn and
soybeans are the main enterprises. In some States, farmland prices now
significantly exceed inflation-adjusted records. These prices could
drop significantly if grain prices fall or interest rates climb. While
the percentage of debt being used to purchase land appears to be
modest, FCA continues to closely monitor farmland values and associated
risk to loan collateral across the System. In addition, FCA continues
to exchange ideas and meet with other banking regulators to determine
the most appropriate regulator response to risks associated with rising
land values.
The System had full access to the capital markets during 2011,
which further increased its overall financial strength and its ability
to serve its mission. In addition, as a Government-sponsored enterprise
(GSE), the System has benefited from the monetary policies that have
helped foster historically low interest rates. Despite continued
volatility in the financial markets, investor demand for System debt
has remained favorable across the yield curve. Because of low interest
rates, the System was able to exercise the options on significant
quantities of callable bonds to further reduce the cost of funds. For
2012, the System expects that the capital markets will continue to meet
its financing needs.
FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION
Congress established Farmer Mac in 1988 to establish a secondary
market for agricultural real estate and rural housing mortgage loans.
Farmer Mac creates and guarantees securities and other secondary market
products that are backed by agricultural real estate mortgages and
rural home loans, USDA guaranteed farm and rural development loans, and
rural utility loans made by cooperative lenders. Through a separate
office required by statute (Office of Secondary Market Oversight), the
Agency regulates, examines, and supervises Farmer Mac's operations.
Farmer Mac is a GSE devoted to making funds available to
agriculture and rural America through its secondary market activities.
Under specific circumstances defined by statute, Farmer Mac may issue
obligations to the U.S. Treasury Department, not to exceed $1.5
billion, to fulfill the guarantee obligations on Farmer Mac Guaranteed
Securities. Farmer Mac is not subject to any intra-System agreements
and is not jointly and severally liable for Systemwide debt
obligations. Moreover, the Farm Credit Insurance Fund does not back
Farmer Mac's securities.
Farmer Mac made financial progress during fiscal year 2011.
Although GAAP net income was down from 2010, this decline was largely
the result of unrealized gains and losses; however, core earnings, a
measure based more on cash flow, was up by 50 percent. As of September
30, 2011, Farmer Mac's core capital totaled $461.3 million, which
exceeded its statutory requirement of $336.6 million. The result is a
capital surplus of $124.7 million, down from $183.2 million as of
September 30, 2010. The total portfolio of loans, guarantees, and
commitments grew 3.2 percent to $11.8 billion.
Farmer Mac's program-business portfolio shows stress in certain
subsectors, but credit risk remains manageable. Stress in the ethanol
industry, as well as certain crop and permanent planting segments,
contributed to an increase in the nonperforming loan rate. The
nonperforming loan rate was 1.46 percent at September 30, 2011,
compared with 1.86 percent a year earlier. Loans more than 90 days
delinquent decreased from 1.53 percent at September 30, 2010, to 1.02
percent a year later.
Regulatory activity in 2012 that will affect Farmer Mac includes an
interagency joint final rulemaking to implement provisions of the Dodd-
Frank Act relating to capital and margin requirements for over-the-
counter derivatives that are not cleared through exchanges; a final
rulemaking on nonprogram investments and liquidity at Farmer Mac; a
proposed rulemaking to amend regulatory requirements governing
operating and strategic planning; and a proposed rulemaking to amend
the Risk-Based Capital Stress Test to reduce its reliance on credit
ratings.
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 2013 budget as presented, and we
continue our efforts to be good stewards of the resources entrusted to
us. In addition to appointing a Performance Improvement Officer, we
have met all of the other requirements of the GPRA Modernization Act
that apply to our Agency. Our Budget Proposal identifies our goals and
the performance measures we have developed to help ensure that we use
our resources judiciously. 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.
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
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 2013
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 the Public Law
480 Title II Food for Peace Program, McGovern-Dole International Food
for Education, and Food for Progress. We strongly oppose USDA's
proposal to divert funding away from Food for Peace.
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, and the need for food aid today is stronger than ever.
According to USDA's Economic Research Service, 12 million metric tons
of commodities are needed each year to fill food gaps in the 70 most
food insecure countries. Food aid, delivered in bags bearing the U.S.
flag marked ``From the American People'' provides a tangible symbol of
our Nation's generosity and compassion and builds good will toward the
American people.
In recent years, opponents of food aid programs have argued that
they are not being administered efficiently, and that we should
therefore just transfer these programming funds over to USAID's
Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP). Through a variety of reforms,
such as prepositioning commodities and application of the Famine Early
Warning System, the speed of delivery and accuracy of food aid
targeting has been dramatically improved in recent years, leading USAID
Administrator Shah to announce last summer that the United States is
now the fastest provider of food assistance at times of crisis and
emergency. Rather than abandon the demonstrated, life-saving benefits
of U.S.-sourced food aid, we should work together across agencies, and
across stakeholders, to apply American ingenuity to these programs, and
continue to make them the best, most efficient programs they can be
while still preserving their unique benefits overseas and here at home.
In contrast to most other foreign assistance programs which just
send money overseas, food aid also provides direct economic benefits
here at home. U.S. food aid programs not only further our humanitarian
and security goals by allowing Americans to share their bounty with the
needy, but these programs also provide stable jobs for hundreds of
thousands of Americans in our farming, processing, and shipping
economic sectors.
Diversion of Food Aid Funding for Cash Donations
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's proposed fiscal year 2013
budget includes a request to divert $66 million in funding away from
Food for Peace, instead adding it to the $300 million already
designated for USAID's EFSP.
Mr. Chairman, we are concerned that this back-door diversion of
funding will further weaken the Food for Peace Program, which has
suffered extraordinary cuts in recent years. Although the program is
authorized at $2.5 billion, funding has fallen in recent years and the
current requested level is only $1.4 billion. This proposal is a replay
of USDA's proposals for fiscal year 2007-2009, which would have given
authority to USAID to use Food for Peace funding for the purchase of
foreign or ``local and regional'' commodities at its discretion. The
U.S. Government and its global partners already have significant cash
amounts for local and regional purchases when it is necessary and
appropriate. Especially in light of the recent cuts to Title II, it is
our belief that the present funding level of EFSP does not need a
further infusion of scarce Title II funds. We respectfully request that
this Subcommittee again reject USDA's proposal, and preserve the
integrity of the Food for Peace program.
Conclusions and Recommendations
We respectfully recommend that our food aid programs continue to be
funded at responsible, sustainable levels. The Public Law 480 Food for
Peace Program is the world's most successful foreign assistance
program, has saved countless lives, and has provided valuable jobs to
the American people, who take pride in their tangible commitment to
relieving global hunger. 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 fifty years. Therefore, we respectfully recommend that
USDA's request to siphon money away from Food for Peace be denied as it
was in prior years.
America Cargo Transport Corp.
American Maritime Congress
American Maritime Officers
American Maritime Officers' Service
APL Limited
American Soybean Association
Central Gulf Lines, 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
North American Millers' Association
National Corn Growers Association
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
National Potato Council
National Sorghum Producers
Sailors' Union of the Pacific
Seafarers International Union
Sealift, Inc.
Transportation Institute
United Maritime Group, LLC
U.S. Dry Bean Council
U.S. Wheat Associates, Inc.
USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council
USA Maritime
USA Rice Federation
Waterman Steamship Corporation
______
Prepared Statement of the American Commodity Distribution Association
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 urge the subcommittee to fully fund administrative expense
funding for the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) at $100
million; to make TEFAP food purchase dollars available for 2 fiscal
years; to approve the administration's budget request of $186,935,000
for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) and provide an
increase of $5 million to begin operations in six additional States
approved by USDA, and to evaluate alternative approaches for the
Department of Defense Fresh Program.
ACDA is a nonprofit 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).
Fully Fund TEFAP Administrative Funds at $100 Million
We urge the subcommittee to fully fund TEFAP Administrative Funds
at $100 million.
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 $74.5 million for TEFAP
Administrative Funds in fiscal year 2010 including ARRA funds, $49.401
million in fiscal year 2011, and $48 million in fiscal year 2012. While
these resources have been used responsibly, and are sincerely
appreciated, food banks around the country are finding that operating
expenses are increasing while private sector donations are decreasing.
They have had to increasingly depend upon converting food dollars to
administrative expense funds in order to maintain their operations.
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. ACDA members tell us that unless TEFAP expense funds
are restored to at least the fiscal year 2010 level, 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 essential to maintaining distribution sites,
especially in rural distribution sites. In fact, this past year
Minnesota was not able to reimburse food bank warehouses for the
storage and distribution costs. New Mexico had to restrict food
deliveries to remote locations, and had to reduce paid staff by not
hiring replacement employees.
Make TEFAP Food Dollars Available for 2 Fiscal Years
We urge the subcommittee to make TEFAP food dollars available for 2
fiscal years, as was done under ARRA.
ACDA officials have met with FNS and AMS personnel to explore ways
to improve the ordering of TEFAP foods. 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. We are pleased that Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition
and Consumer Services Kevin Concannon told the Subcommittee on February
28 that USDA would support making TEFAP food dollars available for a 2
year period.
At the end of fiscal year 2011, Minnesota was at risk of losing
$70,000. Connecticut had nearly $69,000 at risk. Other States had
similar experiences at a time when private donations are fewer, and
when available food dollars result in lower food volumes due to higher
prices.
As we did last year, we respectfully point out to the subcommittee
that 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.
Funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program
ACDA supports the fiscal year 2013 budget request of $186,935,000
for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and urges the
Committee provide an additional $5 million to begin CSFP operations in
six States that now have USDA-approved State plans--Connecticut,
Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. This
additional funding would make CSFP available in 45 States. CSFP
overwhelmingly serves elderly individuals, many of whom are homebound.
States currently operating CSFP requested 116,350 additional caseload
slots for the current program year, clearly showing the need for this
program.
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.
We once again ask 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
The American Farm Bureau Federation has identified the following
nine areas for funding in the fiscal year 2013 Agriculture spending
bill:
--Programs that promote animal health;
--Programs that promote conservation;
--Programs that expand export markets for agriculture;
--Programs that enhance and improve food safety and protection;
--Programs that ensure crop protection tools;
--Programs that further develop renewable energy;
--Programs that strengthen rural communities;
--Programs that support wildlife services; and
--Research priorities.
Farm Bureau strongly opposes any cuts to funding of the farm safety
net. The farm bill discussion has begun, and the House and Senate
Agriculture Committees should continue to have the primary
responsibility to ensure farmers and ranchers have a viable farm safety
net.
Programs That Promote Animal Health
Farm Bureau supports a $5.3 million increase for the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to a total of $14 million for
voluntary Animal Disease Traceability (ADT). The ADT program requires
strong Government oversight on the expenditure of funds and is
essential for animal health.
Farm Bureau supports $4.79 million for the Veterinary Medicine Loan
Repayment Program (VMLRP) administered by the Department of Agriculture
(USDA) National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA). VMLRP
veterinarians ensure animal health and welfare, while protecting the
Nation's food supply.
Farm Bureau supports $123.4 million for the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM). The CVM
oversees the safety of animal drugs, feeds and biotechnology-derived
products.
Programs That Promote Conservation
Farm Bureau supports funding for conservation programs but
prioritizes working lands programs over retirement-type programs.
Farmers and ranchers have made great strides in conserving our natural
resources, and these gains can continue through working lands programs.
Programs That Expand International Markets for Agriculture
Farm Bureau supports funding at authorized levels for:
--The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) to maintain services that
expand agricultural export markets. Farm Bureau urges continued
support for the Office of the Secretary for trade negotiations
and biotechnology resources.
--The Market Access Program, Foreign Market Development Program,
Emerging Markets Program and 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.
--The APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine personnel and facilities,
especially the plant inspection stations, which 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), which oversees the
permit, notification and deregulation process for plant
biotechnology products. BRS personnel and activities facilitate
agriculture innovation, and ensure public confidence and
international acceptance of biotechnology.
Farm Bureau supports continued funding for the U.S. Codex Office.
Active U.S. participation in the Codex Alimentarius Commission is
essential to improving the harmonization of international, science-
based standards for the safety of food and agriculture products.
Programs That Enhance and Improve Food Safety and Protection
Farm Bureau recommends that adequate funding for food protection at
the FDA and Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) be directed to the
following priorities:
--Increased education and training of inspectors;
--Additional science-based inspection, targeted according to risk;
--Effective inspection of imported food and feed products;
--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.
Farm Bureau supports funding for a National Antimicrobial Residue
Monitoring System (NARMS) to detect trends in antibiotic resistance.
NARMS protects human and animal health through integrated monitoring of
antimicrobial resistance among foodborne bacteria. Farm Bureau requests
that Congress direct that stakeholder involvement and industry input be
a priority in the ongoing Federal review.
Farm Bureau supports funding for the Food Animal Residue Avoidance
Databank (FARAD) at the authorized level of $2.5 million. FARAD aids
veterinarians in establishing science-based recommendations for drug
withdrawal intervals. No other Government program provides or
duplicates the food safety information FARAD provides to the public.
Farm Bureau opposes the administration's request for new user fees
for inspection activities. Food safety is for the public good, and as
such, it is a justified use of public funds.
Programs That Ensure Crop Protection Tools
Farm Bureau supports maintaining $12 million for Minor Crop Pest
Management (IR-4) within NIFA Research and Education Activities.
Developing pest control tools has high regulatory costs, and public
support has been needed to ensure that safe and effective agrichemicals
and biopesticides are available for small, orphan markets. The IR-4
Project facilitates Environmental Protection Agency registration of
safe and effective pest management technologies where the private
sector is unable to cover regulatory cost.
Farm Bureau supports maintaining funding to the National
Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS), specifically for the
continuation of agricultural chemical-use surveys for fruits,
vegetables, floriculture and nursery crops. NASS surveys provide data
about the use of agricultural chemicals involved in the production of
food, fiber and horticultural products.
Programs That Support the Development of Renewable Energy
Farm Bureau supports 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 offers
funding for energy audits and feasibility studies.
Farm Bureau supports funding for the Biomass Crop Assistance
Program (BCAP). BCAP provides vital financial assistance to farmers who
produce and transport eligible biomass feedstocks and helps growers
meet the capital-intensive costs of establishing new crops and
delivering them to market.
Programs That Strengthen Rural Communities
Farm Bureau supports USDA implementing a regional approach to give
its Rural Development (RD) programs greater flexibility and promote
innovation in rural regions.
Farm Bureau supports maintaining the funding at authorized levels
for:
--The Value-Added Agricultural Producer Grants, Rural Innovation
Initiative, Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program, and
Business and Industry Direct and Guaranteed Loans, which all
foster business development in rural communities.
--Rural Utilities Service for rural broadband and telecommunications
services, and the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program.
--The Revolving Fund Grant Program for acquiring safe drinking water
and sanitary waste disposal facilities.
--The Resource Conservation and Development Program, which helps
local volunteers create new businesses, form cooperatives and
develop agri-tourism activities.
--The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, which
provides participants with the information and skills needed to
make informed decisions for their operations.
--Agriculture in the Classroom, a national grassroots program
coordinated by USDA, which helps students gain greater
awareness of the role of agriculture in the economy and
society.
Programs That Support Wildlife Service
Farm Bureau supports maintaining the funding level for Wildlife
Service programs. Wildlife Service works to prevent and minimize an
estimated $1 billion worth of wildlife damage, while protecting human
health and safety from conflicts with wildlife.
Research Priorities
Agricultural research is vital, particularly research focused on
meeting the growing challenges of production agriculture. The United
Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization predicts that farmers will
have to produce 70 percent more food by 2050 to feed an additional 2.3
billion people around the globe. America's farmers are the most
efficient in the world, but without a commitment to further
agricultural research and technological advancement, even America's
farmers could be hard-pressed to meet these challenges.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Forest & Paper Association
Introduction
The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) is the national
trade association of the forest products industry, representing pulp,
paper, packaging and wood products manufacturers, and forest
landowners. Our companies make products essential for everyday life
from renewable and recyclable resources that sustain the environment.
The forest products industry accounts for approximately 5 percent
of the total U.S. manufacturing GDP. Industry companies produce about
$190 billion in products annually and employ nearly 900,000 men and
women, exceeding employment levels in the automotive, chemicals and
plastics industries. The industry meets a payroll of approximately $50
billion annually and is among the top 10 manufacturing sector employers
in 47 States. Within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, continued
resources for 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
AF&PA supports continued funding of the 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 that is less burdensome than the food
additive approval process. It has allowed packaging manufacturers to
bring new, more environmentally friendly products to market that have
extended product shelf life, thereby increasing consumer value.
As Congress begins work on appropriations legislation for FDA in
the coming weeks, we would like your support and assistance in ensuring
that robust funding is included in the appropriations bills for the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, and that Congress
expresses its intention to continue the operation of the FCN program.
AF&PA appreciates that the subcommittee has previously rejected
proposals to eliminate the FCN program.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)--Lacey Act
Enforcement
AF&PA supports $5.5 million to provide for implementation of the
declaration requirement of the Lacey Act, as amended by the 2008 farm
bill.--The 2008 farm bill amended the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 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 already is 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.
When fully implemented, the law requires U.S. importers of wood and
wood products to file a declaration identifying the genus/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 fully implement
congressional mandates, including to establish an electronic
declarations database and to add internal capacity to perform data
analysis needed for monitoring and enforcement purposes.
APHIS--Plant Pests
AF&PA recommends maintaining at least fiscal year 2012 funding of
$56 million for the ``Tree and Wood Pests'' category to aid in
combating these, and other pests and diseases.--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 that harm commercial
timber stands, community parks, and private forest landowners. American
citizens most certainly will bear the cost of combating these and other
emergent threats. We believe a comprehensive, coordinated response to
each is more effective and more economical.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture--McIntire-Stennis
Cooperative Forestry Research
AF&PA requests $33 million for the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative
Forestry Research Program.--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.
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 research needed to address
critical forest issues such as fires, storms, 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 private forest owners, and develop new
opportunities for economic benefit from their forests.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Honey Producers Association, Inc.
Chairman Kohl and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Mark
Jensen, 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 for 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,
including at least $11.7 million for bee research at the ARS Honeybee
Research Laboratories. And we specifically request that funds and
personnel not be diverted from the essential ARS Honeybee Research
Laboratory in Weslaco, Texas, which for reasons given below would
jeopardize highly valuable research at a critical time for America's
beekeepers.
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. One key example is the almond
crop. California grows 100 percent of the Nation's almonds and supplies
80 percent of the world's almonds, all of which are 100 percent
pollinated by managed bees. Nearly half of the managed colonies in the
United States are transported each year from other parts of the country
to pollinate those almonds. In addition to this clear commercial
benefit, honeybees are also vital to the health of all Americans given
the dietary importance of such diverse pollinated 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.
With this in mind, a threat to the existence of managed American
honeybees is a threat to all Americans. And unfortunately, the American
honeybee continues to face a number of significant threats. While not
specifically a topic of relevance for congressional appropriators,
complex circumvention and customs fraud schemes continue to
disadvantage the American honey producer, stress pollinated crops and
even threaten the health and safety of consumers. Producers struggle
under the impact of increasingly divergent market prices--one price for
legitimate honey and another rock bottom price for illegally
transshipped honey. The direct result of these divergent prices is a
rapidly shrinking domestic market share for American producers. The
shrinking domestic share has, in turn, diminished the available supply
of managed bee colonies necessary to pollinate U.S. agriculture, and it
has placed American consumers at risk due to increasing volumes of low-
cost, often adulterated, food products entering uninspected into the
Nation's food supply.
This substantial trade threat is layered on top of the industry's
ongoing battle against Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), a phenomenon
that since 2006 has ravaged bee colonies across the United States,
moving from one hive to another in unpredictable patterns and causing
the death of up to 90 percent of the bee colonies in affected apiaries.
The National Research Council at the National Academy of Sciences has,
as a result of CCD, characterized the beekeeping industry as being in
``crisis mode''--a point echoed and re-emphasized in a USDA action plan
regarding honeybee threats. And 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.
Unfortunately, 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. 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, including stress
from the cross-country movement of bees for commercial pollination,
stress of pollinating crops, 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, resulting
in an inadequate capacity to respond to new research challenges and to
take long-term steps to assure honeybee health. In recent years,
honeybee research has become overly confined to four ARS laboratories
that, while providing the first line of defense against exotic
parasitic mites, Africanized bees, viruses, brood diseases, pests,
pathogens and other conditions, simply cannot be expected to handle the
full range of honeybee research challenges at current funding levels.
At the same time, universities and the private sector, despite their
ability to provide significant and innovative new research on emerging
bee threats, have scaled back their efforts due to a lack of available
funds.
In recent years, the Federal Government has spent very modest
amounts at each ARS Honeybee Research Laboratory--for a sector that
contributes $15 billion per year to the U.S. farm economy and
exponentially more to ensuring ecological balance and a healthy human
diet. Worse still, with the emergence of CCD, funding amounts have not
been increased commensurate with growing bee health concerns, resulting
in 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. To give a sense of this cost, it is
estimated that each new scientist, technician and the support materials
that they need will cost an additional $500,000 per year. Many new
scientists are needed.
To address these challenges, the AHPA respectfully requests funding
consistent 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, Maryland 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; honeybees, bumblebees, 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 honeybee and native bee
physiology, insect pathology, insect chemical ecology, and honeybee and
native bee toxicology.
Unfortunately, it has come to our attention that ARS, in a unique
decision to try and achieve false savings, is planning in fiscal year
2013 to close the Weslaco ARS research facility, including the ARS
Honeybee Research Laboratory--perhaps the newest and best of the four
honeybee research laboratories in terms of practical, near term results
achieved. Our understanding is that funds currently dedicated to the
Weslaco honeybee research function would be ``re-directed'' to honeybee
research currently conducted in Beltsville, Maryland, and Tucson,
Arizona.
The AHPA strongly opposes the decision to close the Weslaco
Honeybee Research Laboratory. While we appreciate that ARS intends to
maintain and re-direct funds rather than terminate the research
function entirely, it is important to note that the each of the four
ARS Honeybee Research Laboratories 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. And each of the four ARS Honeybee Research
Laboratories has unique strengths and is situated and equipped to
support independent research programs which would be difficult, and in
many cases impossible, to conduct elsewhere. This is particularly true
of the Weslaco laboratory.
Thus, given the multi-factor research capacity needed to address
the scourge of CCD and the unique contributions made by each of the
four laboratories, the AHPA urges Congress to permit Weslaco and each
of the other ARS Honeybee Research Laboratories to continue and expand
upon their unique strengths in their respective geographic locations.
For the following reasons, the AHPA believes that maintaining the
laboratory in Weslaco is in the best overall interest of our Nation's
honeybee research agenda:
--Personnel.--ARS, in its plan to re-direct funds from the Weslaco
Honeybee Research Laboratory, does not account for the loss of
highly skilled personnel. While ARS appears to believe that the
scientific staff in Weslaco are replaceable, we believe this
ignores that honeybee research is a unique study with a limited
number of dedicated scientists worldwide. Further, even
assuming ARS could replace some or all of the scientists,
valuable time and years of practical and scientific knowledge
and experience will be lost. In fact, some of the key personnel
at Weslaco have already resigned or opted for retirement out of
concern that the ARS plan for re-direction of funds will come
to fruition. And finally, since the ARS plan would re-direct
funding to other laboratories with existing research leaders,
the result will likely be the loss of a research leader
position--a position typically reserved for distinguished
scientists. Each research leader position lost diminishes our
capacity to attract world class scientific talent to honeybee
research.
--Mission.--The Weslaco Honeybee Research Laboratory's mission is to
research ways to implement integrated pest management
principles. As discussed above, each of the four ARS
laboratories has a unique focus. Weslaco is the only honeybee
laboratory dedicating a significant amount of time, money and
expertise to honeybee pest, parasite and disease management--an
absolutely necessary endeavor if we intend to preserve colony
strength while awaiting the results of research initiatives at
other laboratories aimed at longer-term solutions for the same
problems. In short, the Weslaco laboratory is the front-line
defense. The others represent longer-term hope. For example, in
cooperation with pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturing
companies, Weslaco scientists have played a key role in
bringing to market all of the major chemical controls that have
successfully mitigated damage that would otherwise be caused by
Varroa destructor mites. If the honeybee research laboratory at
Weslaco is re-located as proposed, its research focus will
necessarily be altered, and possibly even lost since the other
laboratories do not have expertise in the same area of
research. We cannot afford to take that risk at this
particularly challenging time.
--Cost.--If implemented, the ARS plan will produce an overall cost
increase for the agency's honeybee research program instead of
serving as an austerity measure. The Weslaco Honeybee Research
Laboratory will realize increased costs associated with travel
and other administrative inefficiencies that will be necessary
if ARS wishes to continue the current Weslaco research agenda--
an agenda that relies on particular geographic and climate
qualities not found in Beltsville, Maryland or Tucson, Arizona.
Additionally, the receiving facilities will be burdened with
new administrative responsibilities and demands for space.
Restructuring any research facility requires time and funding.
The ARS facilities are no exception. The fiscal year 2012
Senate Appropriations Committee report included the following
language: ``[W]hile the Committee understands the need to
continually look for ways to increase efficiency and improve
research outcomes, laboratory closures often cost money in the
short-term and do not necessarily provide real savings.
Therefore, the Committee directs ARS to evaluate its capital
asset requirements for necessary coordination with ongoing and
emerging research opportunities. As part of this evaluation,
ARS should provide opportunity for public comment in order to
incorporate the priorities of all interested stakeholders,
including ARS and other scientists, and users of ARS data.
Finally, in future budget requests, the Committee directs ARS
to identify any costs associated with any proposed laboratory
closures, including decommissioning, relocation or other
effects on employees, and any other additional costs.''
Unfortunately, the ARS plan to re-direct funding does not
appear to account for the added costs discussed above and
contemplated by Congress just a year ago. Further, while they
have communicated with certain stakeholders, ARS has failed to
provide formal notice and afford appropriate time for public
comment by those most affected by its decision. And finally,
ARS has not, to our knowledge, identified ``costs associated
with any proposed laboratory closures, including
decommissioning, relocation or other effects on employees, and
any other additional costs.''
--Climate.--The research currently conducted at the Weslaco Honeybee
Research Laboratory relies on more than 450 research-quality
bee colonies located near the facility. The scientists at
Weslaco have access to such a large bee supply due in
substantial part to the unique climate and habitat afforded by
the laboratory's Weslaco, Texas location. Taken together, the
warm climate and ample scrub brush ranch land combine for an
optimal breeding ground and year-round research--a combination
that neither the Beltsville, Maryland or Tucson, Arizona can
offer.
--Quality and Divisibility of Facility.--As a practical matter,
closing the Weslaco Honeybee Research Laboratory is
unnecessary. As discussed above, the laboratory at Weslaco is
among the best and newest in the country, and it remains an
ideal geographic location for honeybee research. While we
acknowledge that ARS maintains other agricultural research
laboratories on the same campus, known collectively as the Kika
de la Garza Subtropical Agricultural Research Center, and that
those other laboratories are also targeted for closure, we note
that the property is easily divisible and that closure of one
lab does not necessitate closure of another. Each laboratory on
the Weslaco campus operates in a separate building with
considerable distance between buildings. Further, each
laboratory has its own independent scientific and
administrative staff. Thus, ARS can easily close and lease or
sell other agricultural research laboratories located on the
Weslaco campus without disturbing the important work conducted
by the honeybee laboratory. Indeed, this makes good sense given
that the ARS plan is to both close and eliminate funding for
those other laboratories whereas, in the case of the honeybee
laboratory, it is only to close and re-direct funding, a move
that the members of our organization believe strongly will
actually result in greater costs than benefits.
--Precedent.--This is not the first time ARS laboratories have faced
this challenge. In the President's fiscal year 2003 budget
proposal, a number of laboratories were proposed for closure,
consolidation or reduction. Ironically, those targeted then for
closure included all of the ARS Honeybee Research Laboratories
except Weslaco. Similar to the current situation, the fiscal
year 2003 proposal sought to achieve projected budgetary
savings at the expense of science. Congress wisely and
emphatically rejected that proposal. The following excerpt is
from the fiscal year 2003 Senate Appropriations Committee
report: ``The Committee does not concur with proposals to close
selected research laboratories and consolidate and terminate
related ongoing research programs. The Committee directs the
Agency to maintain these important research programs and
laboratories and maintains funding which was eliminated under
the President's budget.'' Then 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 budget proposal to close that facility.
Congress should again reject closure and consolidation of the
ARS Honeybee Research Laboratories in fiscal year 2013, just as
it did on two prior occasions in the last decade.
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
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.
Fully funding the 2008 farm bill authorization for the Department of
Agriculture's NIFA would go a long way toward achieving this worthy
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 continued funding
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.
In conclusion, we wish to thank you again for your past support of
honeybee research and for your understanding of the critical importance
that Federal funding plays in ensuring a healthy honeybee supply. By
way of summary, in fiscal year 2013, the American Honey Producers
Association strongly encourages at least $11.7 million in funding for
CCD and other honeybee research spread among the four ARS Honeybee
Research Laboratories. The AHPA strongly opposes closure of the ARS
Honeybee Research Laboratory in Weslaco, Texas. And, the AHPA supports
continued funding for the NIFA at the Department of Agriculture, and
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 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
On behalf of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
(AIHEC) and the 32 Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) that
currently compose the list of 1994 Institutions, thank you for this
opportunity to outline our needs and concerns for fiscal year 2013.
This statement is presented in three parts: (a) summary of our
fiscal year 2013 funding recommendations, (b) brief background on
Tribal Colleges and Universities, and (c) an outline of the 1994
Institutions' plan for using our land grant programs to fulfill the
agricultural potential of American Indian communities, and to ensure
that American Indians have the skills and support needed to maximize
the economic potential of their resources.
Summary of Requests
We respectfully request the following for fiscal year 2013 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: $4,312,000 for the 1994 Institutions' competitive
Extension grants program; $2 million for the 1994 Institutions'
competitive Research Grants program; $3,335,000 for the Higher
Education Equity Grants; a doubling of the corpus in the Native
American Endowment fund; and in the Rural Development--Rural Community
Advancement Program (RCAP), that $4 million be appropriated for the TCU
Essential Community Facilities Grants program (the same level included
in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request) to help the 1994
Institutions address the critical facilities and infrastructure needs
that advance their capacity to participate as full land grant partners.
Background on Tribal Land Grant Institutions
The first Morrill Act was enacted in 1862 specifically to bring
education to the people and to serve their fundamental needs. Today,
150 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 32 Tribal Colleges and Universities that compose the list of
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 20 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 using 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 critically important
to us. It is essential that American Indians explore and adopt new and
evolving technologies for managing our lands. With increased capacity
and program funding, we will become even more fundamental contributors
to the agricultural base of the Nation and the world.
Competitive Extension Grants Programs.--The 1994 Institutions'
extension programs strengthen communities through outreach programs
designed to bolster economic development; community resources; family
and youth development; natural resources development; and agriculture;
as well as health and nutrition education and awareness. Without
adequate funding the 1994 Institutions' ability to maintain existing
programs and to respond to the many 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. Funding for the 1994 Land Grant Extension programs 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
used 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 this program include poverty, isolation, health,
cultural dissonance, and land use practices by Lakota landowners. To
continue such highly successful programs conducted at 1994
Institutions, we request that the Subcommittee appropriate a minimum of
$4,312,000 for this competitive grants program to support 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. The $1,801,000 appropriated last year is, by any measure,
inadequate to develop capacity and conduct necessary research at our
institutions. The 1994 Research Grants 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
program funded at less than $2 million, for which all 32 of the 1994
Institutions compete for awards, is incredibly 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; ramifications of 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 considerable 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 request that the Subcommittee afford the
1994 Research competitive program a very modest increase, and
appropriate $2 million for these critical grants.
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
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 at a minimum, $3,335,000 to allow the 1994
Institutions to continue their current course offerings and the
successful activities that have been established.
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' treasury endowment was $4,306,999 and after
the USDA NIFA claimed its standard 4 percent administrative fee,
$4,134,719 was distributed among the eligible 32 TCU Land Grant
Institutions by statutory formula. Once again, the administrative fee
paid to USDA-NIFA to simply make the funds available for draw down by
the eligible 1994 Institutions was higher than the amount paid to all
but 6 of the 32 tribal college (1994) land grant institutions. In other
words, about 80 percent of the 1994 institutions receive less of the
annual interest yield for program use than the administrative fee paid
to the USDA-NIFA.
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. 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. For the latest endowment interest distribution, the
median interest payment to 1994 Institutions was $97,494, which is
clearly not sufficient to address curriculum development and
instruction delivery, not to mention the need to address the ongoing
facilities and infrastructure projects at these institutions. In order
for the 1994 Institutions to become full partners in the Nation's land-
grant system, we need the facilities and infrastructure necessary to
fully engage in education and research programs vital to the future
health and well being of our reservation communities. Identifying
creative solutions is essential to address so many public funding needs
in a time of extreme fiscal austerity. The TCUs propose a one-time
doubling of the 1994 Native American endowment, which would result in
an increase in the annual interest yield by approximately $4 million--
the same amount as proposed for the TCU Rural Development Essential
Community Facilities Grant program. Payments into the endowment remain
with the U.S. Treasury, therefore only the interest yield is scored as
outlay. Should the endowment corpus be doubled and the agency's
administrative fee scaled back, the TCUs could then consider forgoing
the Rural Development program. We respectfully request that the
Subcommittee consider doubling the current endowment corpus by fiscal
year 2015. Additionally, we strongly urge the Subcommittee to review
the USDA-NIFA administrative fee charged and consider directing the
department to reduce said fee for the Tribal College Endowment program
so that more of these already limited interest funds can be utilized by
the 1994 Institutions to conduct essential community-based programs and
address critical infrastructure needs.
Tribal Colleges and Universities Essential Community Facilities
Program (Rural Development).--The Absent the doubling of the 1994
endowment corpus resulting in an additional interest yield equal to the
TCU Essential Community Facilities Program, we strongly urge the
Subcommittee to appropriate a minimum of $4 million, the level included
in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request, each year for the
next 3 fiscal years to afford the 1994 Institutions the means to
actively 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 and respectfully request your continued support and full
consideration of our fiscal year 2013 appropriations requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Phytopathological Society
The American Phytopathological Society (APS), the premier
educational, professional, and scientific society dedicated to the
promotion of plant health and plant disease management for the global
good, appreciates the opportunity to provide our views on research,
extension, and education provisions of the fiscal year 2013
agricultural appropriations bill. The APS believes that now is the time
to make strategic, additional investments in agricultural science to
help jumpstart the U.S. economy. Thus, we request the Subcommittee to
include in the fiscal year 2013 agricultural appropriations bill,
funding for agricultural science and technology at no less than the
fiscal year 2012 level for the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). We further
request the Subcommittee to support strategic investments, above the
fiscal year 2012 funding levels, of $72.9 million for the ARS and NIFA
as described below:
--A net increase of $7.9 million for salaries and expenses for the
USDA Agricultural Research Service, (i.e., funding at not less
than the President's budget request of $1,102,565,000);
--A net increase of $4 million for the Food and Agriculture Defense
Initiative (homeland security) under the Integrated Activities
account of the National Institute for Food and Agriculture,
returning the funding to the fiscal year 2010 level of $9.83
million with the increase divided equally between the National
Plant Diagnostic Network and the National Animal Health
Laboratory Network; and
--A net increase of $61 million (total budget of $325 million) for
the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) competitive
grants program of the National Institute for Food and
Agriculture.
Agriculture in the United States is highly productive. This
productivity was achieved because past investments in agricultural
science led to advances that placed our producers, processors, and
manufacturers at the cutting edge of agricultural technology. To ensure
continued safety and security of our food, feed, fiber, and natural
resources, we believe that science-based solutions to the new
challenges faced in today's agriculture must be explored and developed.
Further, our agricultural economy must be protected from devastating
invasive plant diseases and pests by a robust diagnostic network and
the development of science based tools and resources. The only way we
can achieve these solutions is by providing strategic investments in
agricultural science, extension, and education and to make these
investments with additional funds and not by reducing funding for other
essential programs at ARS and NIFA.
The jobs of 21 million Americans depend on the vitality of the U.S.
agriculture and food sector. In Ohio, for example, one in seven jobs is
directly tied to agriculture. For every $1 invested in publicly funded
agricultural research, a minimum of $20 in economic activity is
generated. Unfortunately, U.S. Government investments in agricultural
innovation have been flat in recent years. As a consequence, the
competitive edge that made the U.S. agricultural research sector the
envy of the world has declined, and industry is turning to other parts
of the world for innovation. The decisions made by the Subcommittee
this year will have far-reaching impacts, the downstream implications
of decisions made now have far reaching impacts, as the scientific
research funded today will be responsible for enhancing the Nation's
agricultural productivity and overall economic prosperity in the
future.
While an increase of $100 million would have little impact on the
NIH or NSF research budgets, a $73 million increase in funding for the
USDA's ARS and NIFA would be significant in the impact on the Nation's
economy, generating almost $1.5 billion in economic activity.
The added funds we are requesting for the Food and Agricultural
Defense Initiative (Homeland Security) would ensure that we have a
coordinated network of diagnostic laboratories and experts at land
grant universities, State departments of agriculture to protect our
crops from diseases such soybean rust, citrus greening, plum pox virus,
sudden oak death, Ug99. The slight increase in funding for the ARS
would support funding for food safety, crop health, and strengthen
long-term agro-ecosystem research that will be essential for ensuring
an abundant supply of safe, high quality, food, feed, and fiber during
periods of changing weather patterns.
The 23 percent increase in the AFRI competitive grants program
would provide a much needed boost of funding for fundamental, applied,
and integrated research and education that will be used to address
critical gaps in food safety science, particularly those related to
human pathogens on/in plants and plant associated microbial
communities. The AFRI funding increase could also expand opportunities
for scientists broadly trained to meet the needs of the various
agricultural industries.
We recognize the difficult challenge facing the Subcommittee.
However, we believe that investment in science for food and agriculture
is essential for maintaining the Nation's food, economic, and national
security. Thank you for this opportunity to present our views.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
The American Public Power Association (APPA) appreciates the
opportunity to submit this statement outlining our fiscal year 2013
funding priorities within the jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies
Subcommittee. We support increased funding for farm bill Title IX
programs, and $308 million for the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
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
46 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.
Department of Agriculture: Title IX Programs
APPA supports full funding for 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 $56 million 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 2012.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
APPA supports the President's budget request of $308 million for
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), a $102 million
increase over fiscal year 2012. As the CFTC continues to implement the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, they
will struggle to do so in a timely manner without the proper staffing
levels and technology necessary to complete rulemakings and
implementation. Given the direct effect the rulemakings will have on
public power utilities and consumers, APPA is supportive of giving the
CFTC the resources it needs to complete the rulemakings quickly and
thoroughly.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit
the following testimony on the fiscal year 2013 appropriation for food
safety and science programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA). The ASM is the largest single life science organization in the
world with more than 38,00 members.
The administration's fiscal year 2013 budget for research and
development (R&D) at USDA would provide $2.6 billion or a 2.7 percent
increase over the fiscal year 2012 level. There is a proposed increase
of 23 percent for the USDA's competitive grants program, the
Agriculture Food and Research Initiative (AFRI), which funds research
at both USDA facilities and land grant universities. Also increased is
funding for research in food safety and global food security. The
budget would increase support for USDA bioenergy research as well, in
part to develop cellulosic and algae-based biofuels. We strongly
support these program increases and ask Congress to approve the fiscal
year 2013 request for these resources necessary to strengthen USDA
research.
Agriculture not only ensures a healthy, plenteous food supply, but
contributes significantly to the economy. Agriculture related
businesses account for 1-in-12 U.S. jobs. Net farm income is forecast
to be nearly $92 billion this year. Farms and ranches produce food
volumes roughly one-third greater than domestic demand, and the U.S.
export share of the global ag market is usually about 20 percent. In
2011, exports of agriculture related products reached a record $136.3
billion, supporting more than 1 million jobs in an economic sector
where exports outperform imports.
In 2010, U.S. agriculture generated food products worth $352
billion, and USDA expects $410 billion for 2011 when market data are
completed. Higher crop yields, better animal breeding, and new products
like genetically modified plants are among the many science based
advances involved in the success of U.S. agriculture. R&D efforts have
had tangible farm-to-fork results, making U.S. agriculture
statistically one of the Nation's most productive economic sectors.
USDA research also improves food safety, helps develop sustainable
energy, protects animal health, and preserves water quality and the
environment. USDA personnel depend upon the best available methods and
tools to accomplish public health goals like decreasing foodborne
illnesses and crop losses due to microbial pathogens.
USDA Funding Advances Science-Based Agriculture
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) conducts intramural
research and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
distributes grants to colleges and universities for extramural
research, extension, and education activities. The ARS budget request
for discretionary funding is $1.103 billion, which is $8 million over
the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The NIFA request is $1.244 billion
or $37 million over fiscal year 2012. Updated science and technology
like genomic databases are critical to USDA's oversight of the
agriculture enterprise in this country. For example, one-third of total
U.S. ag exports are genetically engineered (GE) crops or products from
these crops, and about 80 percent of processed foods sold in the United
States contain GE-derived ingredients. Federal regulators test an
increasing number of samples resulting from food biotechnology; in
fiscal year 2011 alone, testing increased by approximately 28 percent.
USDA investigators and educators clearly must access the latest
information when assessing the safety of our food supply. USDA
researchers also discover best practice approaches to food production,
microbial diseases of food animals and plants, and sustainable
environments. A 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office
called for stronger efforts by USDA in collecting data on antibiotic
use in food animals, to better understand the relationship between use
and pathogens' drug resistance. These science based activities require
adequate funding each year for USDA R&D programs.
ARS maintains over 100 facilities in the United States and abroad
with ongoing studies of optimal ag production, food safety and
security, and environmental stewardship. ARS scientists are responsible
for epidemiological studies of pest and disease transmission to protect
crops. The fiscal year 2013 request identifies new proposed research,
like the allocation of $7.6 million to develop management tools for
soil-borne plant pathogens and nematodes. One goal is to identify
beneficial soil microbes for use as biocontrol tools that stop plant
pathogens naturally. ARS also will increase capacity at its overseas
biological control laboratories to find new biocontrol agents for use
in the United States. Another plant protection program receiving
increased funding will develop plant varieties inherently resistant to
infectious diseases. Other researchers would focus on livestock
protection, such as projects to detect and eliminate tumor and enteric
viruses in poultry.
NIFA funds extramural research projects at the States' agricultural
experiment stations, land grant universities, State-based cooperative
extension system, and other research and education institutions.
Federal funds are distributed through grants and other competitive
awards, and NIFA administers USDA's primary grants program, the
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative. The ASM supports the fiscal
year 2013 budget for AFRI of $325 billion, an increase of $60.5
million. USDA identified priority areas funded in part by this increase
will be developing better feedstocks for biofuel production, minimizing
antibiotic resistance transmission among foodborne pathogens, and
supporting additional graduate student training through the NIFA
Fellows program.
Research results reported in the past year are the best argument
for sufficient USDA R&D funding in fiscal year 2013, illustrating the
breadth of contributions made by USDA science:
--ARS scientists found that using Fourier transform infrared-
attenuated total reflection (FTIR-ATR) spectroscopy can rapidly
identify citrus plant leaves infected with citrus greening
disease, faster and cheaper than the current DNA method.
--Last year, USDA and the U.S. Department of Energy jointly announced
they will invest up to $30 million over 3 to 4 years to support
R&D in biofuels, bioenergy, and high-value bio-based products.
In August, they awarded 10 university grants totaling $12.2
million to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of
biofuel and bioenergy crops.
--ARS molecular biologists are identifying genes in the yeast
Saccharomyces cerevisiae to improve fermentation of fiber from
corn, wheat, and other plants into cellulosic ethanol during
biofuel manufacture. The genes are likely to improve the
yeast's ability to resist deleterious growth inhibitors created
during acid pre-treatments.
--Last year, USDA and the U.S. Agency for International Development
began construction on a university-associated ARS facility that
will specialize in breeding wheat varieties resistant to stem
rust disease, which threatens grain crops worldwide.
--An ARS procedure developed to improve polymerase chain reaction
(PCR) methods for detecting plant pathogens has increased test
sensitivity by 100 to 1,000 fold. Called Bio-PCR, it identified
the bacterium responsible for Pierce's disease of grapes in 90
percent of infected samples compared to 13 percent with
conventional PCR.
--A team of ARS scientists, screening Starmerella yeast for their
ability to produce surfactant-like sophorolipids, are
identifying green alternatives to the currently used petroleum-
based surfactants in products like detergents and paints.
USDA Funding Protects the U.S. Food Supply
One in six Americans becomes sick each year with foodborne
illnesses that could be prevented. USDA cooperates daily with other
Federal partners, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to safeguard the U.S.
food supply through prevention, public and industry education, site
inspections and disease outbreak investigations. The fiscal year 2013
budget for food safety will continue USDA's three part strategy to
fulfill its food oversight responsibilities: prioritizing prevention,
strengthening surveillance and enforcement and improving response and
recovery.
USDA scientists and inspectors are responsible for some important
steps in reducing foodborne illness. For example, USDA expects to
enforce new, stricter Salmonella and Campylobacter standards in turkeys
and young chickens, which could prevent up to 25,000 human illnesses
annually. During 2000-2010, the agency helped achieve the national goal
of reducing E. coli O157 infection rates by 50 percent. In the past 15
years, the overall rates of six foodborne infections have declined by
23 percent, according to a 2011 CDC report. Both ARS and NIFA sponsor
research on safe production, storage, processing, and handling of
animal and plant products. For instance, ARS microbiologists are
studying the relationship between cattle feed containing corn
byproducts of biofuel processing and the persistence of pathogenic E.
coli on the animals' hides. Other USDA microbiologists are studying
yeast extracts as an alternative to using antibiotics in organic turkey
farming.
The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) enforces the
Federal standards for all meat, poultry, and processed egg products, to
ensure they are safe, wholesome, and properly labeled and packaged. The
fiscal year 2013 budget proposes a decrease in FSIS discretionary
funding: at $996 million, more than $8 million below fiscal year 2012
and $11 million less than the fiscal year 2011 level. Volumes of
imported foods are steadily increasing and foodborne illnesses persist
as major public health threats in the United States. Approximately
8,400 FSIS employees inspect foods and production methods at more than
6,200 slaughtering and processing facilities, import houses, and other
federally regulated entities involved in food production. Their
workload is daunting: for example, about 40 million cattle inspected
yearly by FSIS personnel.
Conclusion
The ASM encourages Congress to increase the fiscal year 2013 budget
in support of USDA's science and food safety programs. USDA research in
multiple agriculture sectors has pervasive impacts on our quality of
life. The USDA mission reaches far beyond its role in transforming our
Nation's farms and ranches into highly productive, economically
important businesses. USDA science protects human and animal health,
prevents crop losses from disease and climate changes, seeks best
practices to preserve the environment, encourages innovation in
valuable agriculture based products and supports new generations of
agriculture scientists and educators.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy; Crop Science
Society of America; and Soil Science Society of America
The American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of
America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) represent
over 18,000 members in academia, industry, and Government, and 13,000
Certified Crop Advisers. The largest coalition of professionals
dedicated to the agronomic, crop, and soil science disciplines in the
United States, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA are dedicated to utilizing science
in order to meet our growing food, feed, fiber, and fuel needs. We are
pleased to submit the following funding recommendations for fiscal year
2013: ASA, CSSA, and SSSA urge the Subcommittee to support a $60
million increase from fiscal year 2012 for the Agriculture Food
Research Initiative (AFRI), bringing total funding to $325 million, as
requested in the President's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal. This
strong level of funding will enable AFRI to continue to target areas
that are key to American scientific leadership including: plant health
and production, food safety, sustainable bioenergy and global food
security. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA further recommend funding the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) at $1.13 billion in fiscal year
2013 to recognize the essential role of the intramural programs in
ensuring the safety of our Nation's food system. In addition, ASA,
CSSA, and SSSA recommend funding the United States Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
at $1.244 billion (an increase of $37 million over fiscal year 2012) in
order to maintain continued support for research, education, and
extension programs. Finally, we support a strong commitment to farm
bill conservation programs and request that they be funded at levels
agreed to in the 2008 farm bill to ensure preservation of our Nation's
essential resources--soil and water.
Background
The success of the agriculture and food industry plays a
significant role in the overall health and security of the U.S.
economy. In 2010, U.S. farms and ranches spent $288 billion to produce
goods valued at $369 billion. The value of U.S. food and agriculture
exports is expected to be more than $140 billion in 2011, creating a
record trade surplus of $42.5 billion. Furthermore, the jobs of 21
million Americans depend on the vitality of the U.S. agriculture and
food sector.
Investments in publicly funded research are critical for
maintaining a successful agriculture and food sector. For every $1
invested in publicly funded agricultural and food research, $20 in
economic activity is generated. Budgetary decisions made today have
far-reaching impacts, as the scientific research funded today will be
responsible for enhancing the Nation's agricultural productivity and
economic prosperity in the future. A strengthened commitment to
investments in science for food and agriculture is essential for
maintaining the Nation's food, economic, and national security.
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA applaud the Agricultural Research Services'
(ARS) ability to respond to and address agricultural problems of high
national priority. ARS's 2,200 scientists are located at 90+ research
locations, managing 800 research projects that help solve current and
future crop and livestock production and protection, human nutrition
and environmental quality challenges. ARS programs and technologies
ensure high-quality, safe food and other agricultural products; assess
the nutritional needs of Americans; help to sustain a competitive
agricultural economy; enhance the natural resource base and the
environment; and, provide economic opportunities for rural citizens and
communities. ARS also forms key partnerships that move new technologies
to the marketplace.
These partnerships are especially important to leverage during a
time when our Nation's economy remains vulnerable and Federal funding
is constrained. Such cooperative research and development helps foster
American businesses and enhances the position of the United States as a
global leader in food, feed, fiber and fuel production.
Highlighting National Institute of Food and Agriculture Programs (NIFA)
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI).--ASA, CSSA, and
SSSA strongly endorse funding AFRI at $325 million, which is less than
half of what is authorized in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008. AFRI is the premier competitive grants program for fundamental
and applied research, extension and education in support of our
Nation's food and agricultural systems. Investments in AFRI bolster
work performed by ARS, America's land grant colleges and universities,
the private sector and the American farmer.
Hatch Act Formula Funding.--ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support $236 for
Hatch Act formula funds. These funds provide research grants to our
Nation's great land-grant colleges and universities. Any additional
cuts to academic funding will reduce the ability of our scientists and
students to conduct imperative research such as developing drought
resistant wheat varieties.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Programs (SARE).--
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the President's budget request for SARE at
$22.7 million. This includes $4.7 million for the Professional
Development Program and $3.5 million for the creation of a new Federal-
State Matching Grant SARE Program. SARE directly supports farmer-led
research and development in practices that, in turn, increase food,
fuel and fiber sustainability. In 2007, 64 percent of farmer and
rancher grantees noted that because of an SARE project, they had
achieved higher sales, and another 79 percent had experienced improved
soil quality.
Cooperative Extension System.--Extension forms a critical part of
research, education and extension program integration, a feature unique
to NIFA. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support $294 million for Smith-Lever 3(b)
and 3(c) to support continuing education and research activities.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA also support farm bill conservation programs
that help farmers and ranchers adopt critical conservation practices to
reduce soil erosion, conserve water, address nutrient management
concerns and contribute to carbon sequestration. NRCS conservation
programs are an essential tool to help mitigate and address the
challenge of producing the food, feed, fuel and fiber needed for a
growing global population. We urge the Subcommittee to fund these
programs at levels agreed to in the 2008 farm bill.
Summary
A balance of funding mechanisms, including intramural, competitive,
and formula funding is essential to maintain the capacity of the United
States to conduct both basic and applied agricultural research, to
improve crop and livestock quality, and to deliver safe and nutritious
food products while protecting and enhancing the Nation's environment
and natural resource base.
Thank you for your consideration. For additional information or to
learn more about the ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, please visit
www.agronomy.org, www.crops.org, or www.soils.org.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Nutrition
The American Society for Nutrition (ASN) appreciates the
opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal year 2013
appropriations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National
Institute of Food and Agriculture's Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative (AFRI) and the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS).
Founded in 1928, ASN is a nonprofit scientific society with more than
4,500 members in academia, clinical practice, Government and industry.
ASN respectfully requests $1.2 billion for USDA's Agricultural Research
Service, and we urge you to adopt the President's request of $325
million for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative competitive
grants program in fiscal year 2013.
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
The USDA has been the lead nutrition agency and the most important
Federal agency influencing U.S. dietary intake and food patterns for
years. Agricultural research is essential to address the ever-
increasing demand for a healthy, affordable, nutritious and sustainable
food supply. The AFRI competitive grants program is charged with
funding research, education, and extension grants and integrated
research, extension, and education grants that address key problems of
national, regional, and multi-state importance in sustaining all
components of agriculture. These components include human nutrition,
farm efficiency and profitability, ranching, renewable energy, forestry
(both urban and agro forestry), aquaculture, food safety,
biotechnology, and conventional breeding. AFRI has funded cutting-edge,
agricultural research on key issues of timely importance on a
competitive, peer-reviewed basis since its establishment in the 2008
farm bill. Adequate funding for agricultural research is critical to
provide a safe and nutritious food supply for the world population, to
preserve the competitive position of U.S. agriculture in the global
marketplace, and to provide jobs and revenue crucial to support the
U.S. economy.
In order to achieve these benefits, AFRI must be able to advance
fundamental sciences in support of agriculture and coordinate
opportunities to build off of these discoveries. Therefore, ASN
strongly urges you to adopt the President's request of $325 million for
the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative competitive grants program
in fiscal year 2013. ASN also strongly supports funding AFRI at the
fully authorized level of $700 million as soon as practical. Current
flat and decreased funding for AFRI hinders scientific advances that
support agricultural funding and research.
Agricultural Research Service
The ARS is the Department of Agriculture's lead scientific research
agency. The ARS conducts research to develop and transfer solutions to
agricultural problems of high national priority. It is also the job of
ARS to ensure high-quality, safe food, and other agricultural products;
assess the nutritional needs of Americans; sustain a competitive
agricultural economy; enhance the natural resource base and the
environment; and provide economic opportunities for rural citizens,
communities, and society as a whole.
Nutrition monitoring conducted in partnership by the USDA ARS with
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is a unique and
critically important surveillance function in which dietary intake,
nutritional status, and health status are evaluated in a rigorous and
standardized manner. (ARS is responsible for food and nutrient
databases and the ``What We Eat in America'' dietary survey, while HHS
is responsible for tracking nutritional status and health parameters.)
Nutrition monitoring is an inherently governmental function and
findings are essential for multiple Government agencies, as well as the
public and private sector. Nutrition monitoring is essential to track
what Americans are eating, inform nutrition and dietary guidance
policy, evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of nutrition
assistance programs, and study nutrition-related disease outcomes.
Because of past funding deficiencies, some food composition database
entries don't reflect the current food supply, which may negatively
impact programs and policies based on this information. It is
imperative that needed funds to update USDA's food and nutrient
databases and the ``What We Eat in America'' dietary survey, both
maintained by the USDA ARS, are appropriated to ensure the continuation
of this critical surveillance of the Nation's nutritional status and
the many benefits it provides.
With the growing need for agricultural research to ensure that the
country is healthy, ARS requires access to sufficient funding.
Therefore, ASN requests that ARS receive $1.2 billion in fiscal year
2013. At least $10 million above current funding levels is necessary to
ensure that the critical surveillance of the Nation's nutritional
status and the many other benefits ARS provides continue. With such
funding, the ARS will be able to continue its vision of leading America
toward a better future through agricultural research and information.
USDA AFRI and ARS programs are both equally important to the
nutrition field because together they provide the infrastructure and
the investigator-initiated, peer-reviewed research that generates new
knowledge and allows for rapid progress toward meeting national dietary
needs. These programs allow USDA to make the connection between what we
grow and what we eat. Through strategic nutrition monitoring, we can
also learn how dietary intake affects our health.
Thank you for your support of USDA ARS and AFRI, and thank you for
the opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal year 2013
appropriations. Please contact John E. Courtney, Ph.D., Executive
Officer, at jcourtney@nutrition.org, if ASN may provide further
assistance.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals
On behalf of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (ASPCA) and our 2.5 million supporters nationwide, thank you
for the opportunity to submit this written testimony. Founded in 1866,
the ASPCA was the first humane organization in North America. Our
mission, as stated by founder Henry Bergh, is ``to provide effective
means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United
States.'' The ASPCA works to rescue animals from abuse, pass humane
laws, and share resources with other animal protection groups
nationwide.
The fiscal year 2013 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill presents
opportunities to not only cut unnecessary and wasteful Federal
spending, but also to ensure that programs to protect animals are being
effectively implemented. As you craft the fiscal year 2013
appropriations bill, the ASPCA asks that you please consider the
following provisions to ensure that Federal funds are being effectively
and responsibly spent to protect animals.
Reinstatement of the Ban on Federal Funding for Horse Slaughterhouse
Inspections
The fiscal year 2012 Agriculture Appropriations bill failed to
include a provision that barred Federal funding of USDA inspectors at
horse slaughter plants in the United States. Added as an amendment to
the Agricultural Appropriations bill in 2005, the original measure was
supported by huge, bipartisan votes (69-28 in the Senate and 269-158 in
the House). Each successive appropriations bill included the provision
until last year. This provision effectively prevented horse slaughter
in the United States for human consumption and saved taxpayers up to $5
million a year. Now that the ban on inspections has been removed, horse
slaughterhouses could resume operations on American soil, even though
horsemeat is not sold for human consumption in the United States.
This is distressing on two counts. First, at a time when Congress
is cutting funds for many vital programs across the entire Federal
budget, it is outrageous that taxpayers would be asked to spend $5
million for something as senseless as horse slaughter. Second, since
Americans do not eat horsemeat, this action will benefit only foreign
markets in Asia and Europe, where horsemeat is considered a delicacy.
Contrary to what some may claim, horse slaughter does not create
jobs. The last three remaining slaughter plants in the United States
only created a handful of physically dangerous and low paying jobs. Nor
is horse slaughter a humane way to end a horse's life. Horses are ill-
suited for commercial slaughterhouses due to their biology. They often
endure repeated blows to the head and remain conscious during slaughter
and dismemberment. The USDA has documented, at length, the cruel
treatment of horses at domestic slaughterhouses.
Ending horse slaughter enjoys mainstream, bipartisan support in
Congress. The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, which would
permanently ban horse slaughter in this country and the export of
horses for slaughter abroad, has overwhelmingly bipartisan support in
Congress with 26 cosponsors in the Senate and over 160 in the House.
Beyond Congress, efforts to end horse slaughter enjoy strong mainstream
support with the American public. A 2012 poll commissioned by the ASPCA
and conducted by Lake Research Partners found that 80 percent of
American voters are opposed to the slaughter of horses for human
consumption.
The ASPCA requests that the Committee make the fiscally responsible
and humane decision to reinstate the ban on Federal funding for horse
slaughterhouse inspections by the USDA by inserting the following
language:
``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to pay
the salaries or expenses of personnel to--
``(1) inspect horses under section 3 of the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603);
``(2) inspect horses under section 903 of the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 1901
note; Public Law 104-127); or
``(3) implement or enforce section 352.19 of title 9, Code
of Federal Regulations.''
Maintain or Increase Animal Welfare Act Enforcement Funding for the
Inspection of Puppy Mills
One of the functions of the USDA's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) is to ensure the humane care and treatment
of animals by enforcing the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act of
1966 (AWA). Included in this mandate is the inspection of large-scale
commercial dog breeding operations, which prioritize profit over
welfare. Dogs raised in these facilities, commonly known as puppy
mills, spend their entire lives in small, crowded cages without
adequate veterinary care, food, water, and socialization. These dogs
receive no exercise or basic grooming. To minimize waste cleanup, dogs
are often kept in cages with wire flooring that injures their paws and
legs. Because these cages are often stacked, waste falls through wire
floors onto the animals housed below. Female dogs usually have little
to no recovery time between bearing litters. When, after a few years,
they can no longer reproduce, the dogs are often abandoned or killed.
In 2010, the USDA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released
a report detailing the lax and ineffective enforcement of the AWA for
puppy mills. In response, the House Appropriations Committee late last
year, recognizing the importance of inspecting ``problematic dog
dealers,'' repurposed $4 million for puppy mill inspection enforcement.
The same OIG report recommended closing a loophole in the AWA that
exempts from regulation breeders selling directly to customers over the
Internet. In compliance with that request, the USDA is currently
drafting regulations that would close that loophole, thereby increasing
the number of entities regulated and inspected under the AWA. These
rules will likely be final by 2013 and will require increased funding
for pre-licensing inspections of these new entities and for continued,
annual inspections of these breeding facilities once licensed. The
ASPCA is disappointed that the President's fiscal year 2013 budget
request includes a reduction in funding for APHIS's AWA enforcement
from $28 million in the previous year to $25 million. For fiscal year
2012, Congress approved a 20 percent increase in the USDA's annual
budget to strengthen inspections and enforcement of the AWA. This is on
top of $4 million in reprogrammed fiscal year 2011 funds approved in
October by House Agriculture Appropriations leaders to address
problematic dog dealers. We encourage the Committee to continue this
trend of prioritizing AWA enforcement. The ASPCA requests that the
Committee maintain or increase the previous year's funding for APHIS's
Animal Welfare Act enforcement, build upon the advancements of last
year's repurposing of funds, and encourage the USDA to improve its
inspections of puppy mills.
Exceed the Statutory Funding Cap for Horse Soring Enforcement
In addition to enforcing the Animal Welfare Act, APHIS is charged
with protecting horses through its enforcement of the Horse Protection
Act (HPA) of 1970. USDA inspectors enforce the HPA by conducting
surprise inspections at walking horse shows by examining horses for
soring and the presence of harmful and illegal chemicals. Horse soring
is a cruel practice in which trainers use painful chemicals and other
devices to cause such agony to a horse's front limbs that any contact
with the ground makes the horse quickly jerk up its leg, producing the
pronounced gait prized by the walking horse industry. Recently, the
USDA's Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the Eastern District of Tennessee successfully obtained guilty pleas
from four individuals arrested for horse soring in Tennessee.
While the ASPCA applauds these successful prosecutions, in most
cases the cruelty of horse soring goes unnoticed because USDA officials
do not have the resources to oversee most shows. In 2011, USDA
inspectors had the resources to attend just 62 of approximately 700
walking horse shows nationwide. Other shows were overseen solely by
inspectors trained and hired by the horse industry itself. Although
present at only 8-10 percent of shows, USDA inspectors found over 50
percent of reported violations last year. One of the defendants in the
recent case in the Eastern District of Tennessee testified that ``every
Walking Horse that enters into a show ring is sored . . . They've got
to be sored to walk.'' Clearly the problem is endemic and industry
self-regulation is not effectively exposing violators. A greater USDA
presence is necessary to root out the bad actors and hold them
accountable.
Since passage of the HPA in 1970, effective USDA enforcement of
horse soring has been frustrated by a $500,000 statutory funding cap on
activities under the authority of HPA. Though Congress can choose to
ignore the cap and fund the program at higher levels, only once, in
fiscal year 2012, did the Committee choose to do so. If APHIS is to
eradicate soring, the program must be adequately funded so that it can
assert a strong and frequent presence at horse shows. It must also have
proper funding to sample horses for the presence of foreign substances,
such as those documented in the most recent criminal soring
prosecutions. Finally, HPA enforcement should not have to rely on lax
and inadequate industry self-regulation. The agency requires increased
funding in order to certify independent veterinarians who are not
biased by their involvement in the walking horse industry. APHIS has
now begun this process and needs greater resources for the program to
be effective.
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request includes only
$493,000 for HPA enforcement, which is below the statutory cap and
below the $696,000 that this Committee provided last year. The ASPCA
requests that the Committee continue to furnish the USDA with the
proper resources and continue to exceed the statutory funding cap to
allow the USDA to properly enforce the Horse Protection Act and prevent
the cruel practice of horse soring.
Ensure Proper Enforcement of the USDA Ban on Double-Deck Transport of
Horses Bound for Slaughter
Double-deck trailers are dangerous and inhumane when used to
transport horses. The USDA bans the use of these trailers for horses
bound for slaughter, stating: ``We do not believe that equines can be
safely and humanely transported on a conveyance that has an animal
cargo space divided into two or more stacked levels.'' The USDA's
Veterinary Services (VS) program is charged with enforcing this
regulation.
Double-deck trailers are designed for cattle and other short-necked
livestock--not horses. Because horses are significantly taller and
require more head room, these trailers cannot physically provide enough
space to stand upright, leading to unstable footing, falls, injuries,
trampling, and death. As long as Congress allows horses to be
transported and exported for slaughter, VS should take proper steps to
ensure that horses are not transported in cramped and inhumane double-
deck trailers during their final journeys. Currently, VS does not
employ sufficient inspectors in the field or at the border to ensure
that horses are not being transported to slaughter in double-deck
trailers.
The ASPCA requests that the Committee direct Veterinary Services to
properly and effectively enforce the ban on the use of double-deck
trailers to transport horses bound for slaughter.
Defund Licensing and Relicensing of Class B Dealers
Currently, two types of animal dealers are licensed by the USDA to
sell animals for research: Class A ``purpose-bred'' dealers and Class B
``random source'' dealers. Class A dealers are highly regulated
businesses that raise their own animals. Class B dealers, on the other
hand, routinely obtain animals from suppliers with unknown or
suspicious backgrounds. Many of these suppliers obtain the dogs and
cats through theft, or by posing as adopters and responding to ``free
to good home'' advertisements. Class B dealers pay suppliers for each
animal, creating a financial incentive for individuals to steal pet
dogs and cats from owners' properties. Class B dealers then sell the
pets to researchers. As a result, many lost or stolen family pets could
end up as part of an experiment.
The USDA spends hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars each year
unsuccessfully trying to regulate Class B dealers. The process is both
lengthy and time consuming; the USDA must do lengthy ``tracebacks'' to
try to determine the source of the animals. At one point, the USDA
estimated that it spent as much as $300,000 to regulate approximately
10 Class B dealers, or about $30,000 per license. Even so, the
department acknowledges that it is unable to guarantee that dogs and
cats are not being illegally acquired for use in experiments. Five of
the only eight dealers currently in operation are under investigation
by the USDA, and one was recently indicted on a number of Federal
charges, including identity theft. Additionally, the inability to
effectively regulate Class B dealers leads to animals often being kept
in deplorable and inhumane conditions.
Removing animals sourced from Class B dealers would have little
impact on our Nation's research capabilities. In May 2009, a National
Academies report released on the Class B dealer system concluded that
``Class B dealers are not necessary for supplying dogs and cats for
NIH-funded [National Institutes of Health] research.'' The NIH began
implementing a pilot program in March 2011 to eliminate the use of
Class B sourced dogs in favor of other more reputable sources for
NIHsupported research.
Since the NIH is already taking steps to phase out the use of
random sourced animals in research, there is no need or justification
for the USDA to continue to spend Federal funds to support the inhumane
and corrupt system of Class B dealers. The Committee has an opportunity
to not only save tax dollars but to also put an end to its tacit
endorsement of inhumane and possibly illegal businesses.
The ASPCA requests that the Committee insert the following language
to prohibit the USDA from spending funds on new licensing or
relicensing of Class B Dealers:
``Provided, That appropriations herein made shall not be available
for any activities or expense related to the licensing of new Class B
dealers who sell live, random source dogs and cats for use in research,
teaching, or testing, or to the renewal of licenses of existing Class B
dealers who sell live, random source dogs and cats for use in research,
teaching, or testing''.
Defund Wildlife Services' Lethal Predator Control
The USDA's Wildlife Services (WS) division is a little-known
Federal agency that uses tax dollars to kill wildlife species
considered by private landowners and ranchers to be problematic or
nuisances. Unattended traps and poisons--and even helicopter hunting--
are all routine features of WS's campaign to kill wildlife. Their work
is often carried out without oversight, fiscal accountability, or
public notification. The methods they employ are often indiscriminate
and ineffective. In some cases, WS traps and poisons have
unintentionally killed beloved family pets.
The WS lethal predator control program is a waste of taxpayer
dollars. Not only does WS provide a subsidized service for private
landowners, but also its indiscriminate and random targeting of
predators is not based on sound science. The USDA estimates that it
spends $10 million on its lethal predator control program. By cutting
this wasteful and unnecessary program, Congress can ensure that U.S.
taxpayers will stop subsidizing risky wildlife control methods for the
benefit of private property owners.
The ASPCA requests that the Committee act in a fiscally sound and
humane manner and reduce funding for Wildlife Services Damage
Management by $10 million.
Direct APHIS Veterinary Services To Prioritize Twenty-Eight Hour Law
Enforcement
Passed in 1873, the Twenty-Eight Hour Law states that animals
cannot be transported interstate via ``rail carrier, express carrier,
or common carrier'' for more than 28 hours consecutively without being
unloaded for rest, food, and water. It was not until 2005 that the USDA
agreed to extend the statute to interstate truck transport, which
comprises the overwhelming majority of modern farm animal transport.
The Twenty-Eight Hour Law is an important protection for livestock, as
many travel great distances en route to livestock auctions and
slaughter facilities. However, enforcement of this act is still
lacking. APHIS Veterinary Services (VS) program is charged with
enforcing the Federal Twenty-Eight Hour Law. Like its lax enforcement
of the ban on double-decked trailers for horses bound for slaughter, VS
has not made enforcement of the Twenty-Eight Hour Law an enforcement
priority.
The ASPCA requests that the Committee direct APHIS Veterinary
Services to prioritize Twenty-Eight Hour Law enforcement.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plant Biologists
On behalf of the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB) we
submit this statement for the official record in support of funding for
agricultural research by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
ASPB supports the requested level for USDA's Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative (AFRI) of $325 million as well as the requested
level of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) at $1.13 billion.
This testimony highlights the importance of biology, particularly
plant biology, as the Nation seeks to address vital issues including a
sustainable food supply, energy security, and protecting our
environment. 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 in
this difficult fiscal environment.
Food, Fuel, Environment, 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 the primary producers on which
all life depends. 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.
Despite the fact that foundational plant biology research--the kind
of research funded by agencies such as USDA--underpins vital advances
in practical applications in agriculture, health, energy, and the
environment, the amount of money invested in understanding the basic
function and mechanisms of plants is relatively small. In his 2012
annual letter Bill Gates wrote, ``Given the central role that food
plays in human welfare and national stability, it is shocking--not to
mention short-sighted and potentially dangerous--how little money is
spent on agricultural research.'' \1\ This is especially true
considering the significant positive impact crop plants have on the
Nation's economy and in addressing some of our most urgent challenges
like food and energy security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter/2012/Pages/home-
en.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding the importance of these areas and in order to address
future challenges, ASPB organized the Plant Science Research Summit
held in September 2011. With funding from the National Science
Foundation, USDA, Department of Energy, and the Howard Hughes Medical
Institute, the Summit brought together representatives from across the
full spectrum of plant science research to identify critical gaps in
our understanding of plant biology that must be filled over the next 10
years or more in order to address the grand challenges facing our
Nation and our planet. The grand challenges identified at the Summit
include:
--In order to feed everyone well, now and in the future, advances in
plant science research will be needed for higher yielding, more
nutritious varieties able to withstand a variable climate.
--Innovations leading to improvements in water use, nutrient use, and
disease and pest resistance that will reduce the burden on the
environment are needed and will allow for improved ecosystem
services such as clean air, clean water, fertile soil, and
biodiversity benefits such as pest suppression and pollination.
--In order to fuel the future with clean energy--and to ensure that
our Nation meets its fuel requirements--improvements are needed
in current biofuels technologies including breeding, crop
production methods, and processing.
--For all the benefits that advances in plant science bestow--in food
and fiber production, ecosystem and landscape health, and
energy subsistence--to have lasting, permanent benefit they
must be economically, socially, and environmentally
sustainable.
In spring 2012, a report from the Plant Science Research Summit
will be published. This report will further detail priorities and needs
to address the grand challenges.
Recommendations
Because of our membership's extensive expertise and participation
in the academic, industry and Government sectors, ASPB is in an
excellent position to articulate the Nation's plant science priorities
as they relate to agriculture. Our recommendations are as follows:
--Since the establishment of NIFA and AFRI, interest in USDA research
has increased dramatically, a trend ASPB hopes to see grow in
the future. However, much higher investment in competitive
funding is needed if the Nation is to continue to make ground-
breaking discoveries and accelerate progress toward addressing
urgent national priorities. ASPB encourages the appropriation
of the requested level of $325 million in fiscal year 2013 for
AFRI, which, although far short of the authorized level of $700
million, provides sound investment in today's fiscal
environment.
--The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) provides vital research to
serve USDA's mission and objectives and the Nation's
agricultural sector. The need to bolster ARS efforts to
leverage and complement AFRI is great given the challenges in
food and energy security. ASPB is supportive of a strong ARS
and supports the $1.13 billion request for ARS in fiscal year
2013.
--USDA has focused attention in several key priority areas including
childhood obesity, climate change, global food security, food
safety, and sustainable bioenergy. Although ASPB appreciates
the value of such strategic focus, ASPB also emphasizes the
importance of robust support for AFRI's Foundational Program
because scientific research supported by this program provides
a basis for outcomes across a wide spectrum, often leading to
groundbreaking developments that cannot be anticipated in
advance.
--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. ASPB applauds the creation of the
NIFA Fellows program and calls for additional funding of
specific programs (e.g., training grants and fellowships) 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.
--Considerable research interest is now focused on the use of plant
biomass for energy production. However, if crops are to be used
to their full potential, extensive 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.
--With NIFA now in place, USDA is in a strong position to cultivate
and expand interagency relationships (as well as relationships
with private philanthropies) to take on bolder new initiatives
to address grand challenges related to food, energy, the
environment, and health. ASPB also appreciates the need to
focus resources in key priority areas. However, ASPB emphasizes
continued focus on individual grantees, in addition to group
awards and larger multi-institution partnerships. Truly
paradigm shifting discoveries cannot be predicted through
collaborative efforts alone and, thus, there is a need to
maintain a broad, diverse, and robust research agenda.
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony on behalf of the
American Society of Plant Biologists. Please do not hesitate to contact
ASPB 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.
______
Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony as you consider
fiscal year 2013 funding priorities. Our testimony addresses the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Animal Care Program of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, and the Food Safety and Inspection Service.
AWI has also joined several horse show industry organizations, other
animal protection groups, and the key association of equine
veterinarians on a separate statement calling for sufficient funding to
enable USDA to do a better job enforcing the Horse Protection Act.
Animal Care/Animal Welfare Act Enforcement/Class B Random Source
Dealers
In 1966, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to prevent
the mistreatment of animals and to assure families that their pets
would not be sold for laboratory experiments after an expose revealed
the widespread theft of pets for that purpose.
Unfortunately, 46 years later, this is still a problem. Despite the
well-meaning intent of the AWA and the enforcement efforts of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), the AWA routinely fails both to
reliably protect pet owners against the actions of Class B dealers who
sell random source dogs and cats for use in research (also known as
``random source'' dealers), and to ensure that these dealers provide
humane care for the dogs and cats kept on their premises.
In response to repeated requests from Congress, the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) funded a study by the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) of the use of Class B dogs and cats in NIH-funded
research. The NAS's 2009 report ``Scientific and Humane Issues in the
Use of Random Source Dogs and Cats in Research'' describes a
``complicated tangle of trade'' in animals sold for use in experiments,
and notes that ``loopholes in the AWR [Animal Welfare Regulations]
permit pets to enter the research pipeline via Class B dealers.''
Furthermore, ``. . . USDA could not offer assurances that pet theft
does not occur, and agreed that such a crime is exceedingly difficult
to prove . . .'' That difficulty notwithstanding, the report stated
that there are ``descriptions of thefts provided by informants in
prison . . . and documented accounts of lost pets that have ended up in
research institutions through Class B dealers.'' (p.84)
[As part of its mandate, the NAS report assessed whether there is a
scientific rationale for recipients of research grants from NIH to
purchase dogs and cats from random source Class B dealers. The report
concluded that there is not.]
Across the Nation, these random source Class B dealers--and the
middlemen who work for them, known as ``bunchers''--use deceit and
fraud to acquire dogs and cats. Their tactics include tricking animals'
owners into giving away their dogs and cats by posing as someone
interested in pet adoption, and the outright theft of family pets left
unattended. The treatment of the animals sold by these random source
Class B dealers is shocking and cruel. Hundreds of animals are kept in
squalid conditions and are denied much needed veterinary care. Again,
the NAS report cited a variety of problems with regard to animal
welfare and enforcement.
USDA has had to implement a lengthy and time-consuming enforcement
protocol for these random source dealers, involving quarterly
inspections (more than any other licensees) and ``tracebacks,'' in
order to attempt to verify the source of their animals. While it is
exceedingly difficult to put a price tag on this exaggerated level of
oversight, USDA did estimate for the NAS report, at a time when 11
random source Class B dealers were still in business, that it was
spending as much as $300,000 per year to regulate that small number of
dealers. There are now eight dealers left, with one's license still
suspended and four others under investigation. One dealer who recently
gave up his license had been indicted on a number of Federal charges,
including conspiracy, aggravated identity theft, mail fraud, and making
false statements to a Federal agency.
Congress, too, has spent an inordinate amount of time reviewing the
actions of Class B dealers and prodding USDA and NIH to address their
respective Class B dealer problems. NIH long ago banned its intramural
researchers from using Class B dealers but had until recently ignored
Congress' repeated calls for it to do likewise with respect to outside
researchers.
As a result of the NAS report, ongoing congressional interest,
enhanced (but disproportionate to their numbers) oversight by USDA, and
evaporating demand for their dogs and cats, very few of these dealers
remain, and with NIH's phased-in ban on the use of Class B dealers by
its extramural researchers, the Class B dealer system has become a
cruel and expensive anachronism. Those who continue to operate are an
unjustifiable drain on USDA's resources. However, as long as it is
possible to issue and renew licenses for such dealers, there is the
risk that this anachronism will continue to limp along, wasting
taxpayer money and perpetuating the inhumane treatment of animals and
the trade in illegally acquired dogs and cats.
For this reason, we respectfully request that Congress prohibit any
further spending by USDA both to grant new licenses and to renew
existing licenses for Class B dealers selling dogs and cats for
research purposes by including the following language in the report
accompanying the fiscal year 2013 agriculture appropriations:
``Provided, That appropriations herein made shall not be available
for any activities or expense related to the licensing of new Class B
dealers who sell dogs and cats for use in research, teaching, or
testing, or to the renewal of licenses of existing Class B dealers who
sell dogs and cats for use in research, teaching, or testing''.
While this step in and of itself will not immediately save much
money, it will lead to more significant savings later as USDA's
enforcement load with respect to these entities is eliminated.
Food Safety and Inspection Service/Humane Methods of Slaughter Act
Enforcement
We appreciate the generous support provided by Congress during the
past decade for enforcing the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA).
While USDA's enforcement of the law has increased recently, attention
to the issue remains uneven among Federal regional districts.
An analysis of Humane Activities Tracking System (HATS) data
reveals that in calendar year 2010, some USDA districts spent 10-20
times the number of hours on humane enforcement, per animal
slaughtered, as other districts. Overall, USDA continues to allot an
extremely small percentage of its resources to humane slaughter. For
example, in calendar year 2010, only 0.5 percent of all noncompliance
records written by FSIS were for humane violations.
Repeat violators present a major enforcement problem for FSIS. Of
the 205 federally inspected plants that have been suspended for humane
slaughter violations since January 1, 2008, 32 percent have been
suspended more than once within a 1 year period. Moreover, 32 plants
have been suspended on three or more occasions during the past 4 years.
Federal inspection personnel have inadequate training in humane
enforcement and inadequate access to humane slaughter expertise.
Enforcement documents reveal that inspectors often react differently
when faced with similar violations. District Veterinary Medical
Specialists (DVMS) are stationed in each district to assist plant
inspectors with humane enforcement and to serve as a liaison between
the district office and headquarters on humane matters. However, the
work load of each of the 15 DVMSs, which includes visiting each meat
and poultry plant within the district to perform humane audits and
conducting verification visits following suspensions, severely limits
the effectiveness of the role.
The problems of inadequate and inconsistent enforcement can be
resolved by increasing the number and qualifications of the personnel
assigned to humane handling and slaughter duties. No fewer than 140
full-time equivalent positions should be employed for purposes
dedicated solely to inspections and enforcement related to the HMSA. In
addition, the number of DVMS positions should be increased to a minimum
of two per district. It is essential that the DVMS role, and humane
slaughter enforcement overall, not be weakened as a consequence of the
planned consolidation of FSIS districts. Enforcement records suggest
that violations are reported with greater frequency in the presence of
outside inspection personnel, such as DVMSs. Hiring additional DVMSs
will provide for increased auditing and training to help uncover
problems before they result in egregious humane handling incidents.
Animal Care/Horse Protection Act Enforcement/Requested: $891,000
We request that you support $891,000 for strengthened enforcement
of the Horse Protection Act (HPA). Congress enacted the HPA in 1970 to
make illegal the abusive practice of ``soring,'' by which unscrupulous
trainers deliberately inflict pain on Tennessee Walking Horses' hooves
and legs to exaggerate their high-stepping gait and gain unfair
competitive advantage at horse shows. They use such abominable
practices as applying caustic chemicals and then using plastic wrap and
tight bandages to ``cook'' those chemicals deep into the horse's flesh
for days; attaching heavy chains to slide up and down the horse's sore
legs; inserting metal screws or other foreign objects into the
sensitive areas of the hooves; cutting the hooves down to expose the
live tissue; and using salicylic acid or other painful substances to
slough off scarred tissue in an attempt to disguise the sored areas.
A report released in October 2010 by USDA's Office of Inspector
General documents significant problems with the industry self-
monitoring system on which the seriously understaffed APHIS inspection
program relies, recommends its abolition, and calls for funding to
enable the agency to more adequately enforce the law.
We greatly appreciate the appropriation last year of $696,000 for
Horse Protection Act enforcement. Under its historic levels of funding,
Animal Care inspectors were able to attend only about 10 percent of the
more than 500 Tennessee Walking Horse shows held annually. Sustained
support at the requested level of $891,000 will help ensure that this
program doesn't lose ground now that it is finally beginning to address
the need for additional inspectors, training, security (due to threats
of violence against inspectors), and advanced detection equipment
(thermography and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry machines).
Horse Slaughter
In 2006, the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate
overwhelmingly approved language that prevented tax dollars from being
used to inspected horse slaughter facilities. This language remained in
effect until it was removed in conference last year, despite having
been approved by the full House Appropriations Committee. Allowing
horse slaughter to resume will only bring this well-documented abuse to
U.S. soil at great expense to the horses and the American public.
Given the financial troubles facing the Nation, we encourage the
Committee to accept this bipartisan language while the full Congress
moves to pass a ban on horse slaughter:
``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to pay
the salaries or expenses of personnel to--
(1) inspect horses under section 3 of the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603);
(2) inspect horses under section 903 of the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 1901
note; Public Law 104-127);
(3) implement or enforce section 352.19 of title 9, Code of
Federal Regulations;
(4) promulgate or implement a fee-for-service-based Federal
horsemeat inspection scheme.''.
______
Prepared Statement of Catholic Relief Services
On behalf of Catholic Relief Services (CRS) I thank the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on fiscal
year 2013 appropriations under your jurisdiction.
CRS is the relief and development agency of the U.S. Catholic
Church. The Catholic Church's social teaching informs the work of CRS
and our focus on the poorest people in the poorest parts of the world.
The Church has broad and deep experience combating poverty and CRS has
direct experience as an implementer of foreign assistance projects for
almost 70 years, and is currently operating in 100 countries around the
world. CRS programs address HIV and AIDS, health, education, civil
society, food security, agriculture, emergency relief, WASH, and peace
building. The Catholic Church in the United States also has abiding
relationships and regular contact with the church in developing
countries, where our worldwide community serves the needs of the
poorest members of the human family. In fact, CRS counts institutions
of the local Catholic Church as important local partners in many
countries, and works through the church's network abroad to reach
significantly more people, and often in communities inaccessible to the
local government or other actors.
CRS acknowledges the difficult fiscal challenges that Congress
faces, including fulfilling our obligations to future generations. We
welcome thoughtful efforts to reduce our Nation's deficit and debt. But
even in this context, the most poor and vulnerable must have adequate
access to our Nation's limited resources. We therefore urge Congress to
be fiscally responsible in morally responsible ways. We urge Congress
and the Subcommittee in particular, not to make cuts to international
poverty-focused humanitarian relief and development assistance.
CRS has five specific requests related to the Agriculture
appropriations that we ask you to consider:
--CRS is advocating for a reauthorization of Title II of Public Law
480, the Food for Peace Program, of at least $2 billion per
year before the Senate and House Agriculture Committees. We
encourage the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to meet
our recommended authorized funding levels, but in light of the
tight fiscal climate, we consider $1.5 billion the absolute
minimum that should be appropriated to Title II in fiscal year
2013.
--Within the amounts appropriated for Title II, CRS requests that the
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee direct a minimum of
$450 million to development programs, and that the existing
waiver system safe guarding these funds remain unchanged and
intact.
--To make more efficient use of resources, CRS encourages the
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to direct additional
Title II funding to cash resources, which we believe will help
to address the inefficiencies of commodity monetization.
--Similarly, to make more efficient use of resources, CRS encourages
the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to direct the use
of Title II funds toward Local and Regional Procurement (LRP),
which has proven to be an effective tool in the implementation
of emergency and development programs under certain
circumstances.
--CRS requests that the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee
appropriate $250 million for the McGovern-Dole Food for
Education Program.
For the duration of the testimony, I will explain our
justifications for these requests.
Title II should be reauthorized for at least $2 billion per year,
and CRS supports yearly appropriations that match this level, but at
minimum $1.5 billion should to be appropriated to Title II in fiscal
year 2013.
It is estimated that around 100 million people will require
emergency food assistance \1\ and more than 925 million people will
continue to suffer from chronic hunger worldwide.\2\ CRS estimates it
would take more than $12 billion annually to effectively address these
needs. While this global need exceeds the budgetary constraints of the
U.S. Government, we believe it is our moral imperative to provide as
much assistance as we can to the world's poor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ World Food Program USA, Emergency Response, at http://
usa.wfp.org/advocate/emergency-response, last visited March 21, 2012.
\2\ United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, The State of
Food Insecurity in the World (2010), at 8, available at http://
www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1683e/i1683e00.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title II has been, and continues to be, the U.S. Government's
premier mechanism to fight chronic hunger and meet the food needs of
those in emergency situations. In 2011, Title II funding helped CRS
respond to the devastating drought and famine in the Horn of Africa
that affected more than 12 million people.\3\ CRS worked in consortium
with other international and local organizations to provide life-saving
food to more than 2 million Ethiopians, while also helping households
protect productive assets, particularly livestock, which is an
important source of food and serves as a savings mechanism that is
available when absolutely necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Drought and Famine in the Horn of Africa, Testimony of
Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and
Humanitarian Assistance, U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID), Nancy E. Lindborg, Before the Committee on Foreign Relations
Subcommittee on African Affairs. Washington, DC. August 3, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking ahead to 2012, the Famine Early Warning System has
predicted food shortfalls in the Sahel region of West Africa for the
coming year. Much like the Horn of Africa, the Sahel has faced in
recent years cyclical periods of food deficit due to increasingly
inadequate rainfall and farmers' unfamiliarity with cultivation
practices tailored to such dry conditions. CRS's current development
programs in the region help the poor and vulnerable prepare for
impending food crises through interventions like dry season market
gardening projects.\4\ In areas where no development programs exist,
Title II will likely be needed to fund any potential emergency response
in the Sahel to meet impending acute food needs. Title II will also
continue to be a necessary source of funding for other unexpected
global emergencies stemming from natural disasters and human conflict.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Nancy Lindborg, Assistant Administrator, Democracy, Conflict,
and Humanitarian Assistance, USAID, Responding Early and Building
Resilience in the Sahel, The Huffington Post, March 3, 2012, available
at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-lindborg/responding-early-and-
buil_b_1316234.html. The article focuses on a CRS market garden program
in Burkina Faso that was funded through 2009, and is still in operation
under its own accord.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the amounts appropriated for Title II, a minimum of $450
million should be directed to development programs and the existing
waiver system protecting these funds should be preserved.
As mentioned above, more than 925 million people suffer from
chronic hunger worldwide, yet there are insufficient resources to meet
these needs. Title II development programming is the primary U.S.
Government funded program to directly address the underlying causes of
chronic hunger. These programs distribute U.S. food commodities and use
complementary programming to address all aspects of food security,
including agricultural production, health, and nutrition.
Development programs are designed to promote self reliance, long-
term sustainability, resilience in poor communities, which in the long-
run can reduce their need for emergency assistance. For example, in the
recent drought and famine in the Horn of Africa in 2011, CRS worked
alongside other aid providers, the U.S. Agency for International
Development, and the Government of Ethiopia, to implement a national
Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP). The program, funded in large part
by Title II development resources, distributed food and cash to the
most vulnerable, giving communities the means to withstand the
drought's affects and making more costly emergency assistance
unnecessary for 7 million Ethiopians.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Nancy Lindborg, Assistant Administrator, Democracy, Conflict,
and Humanitarian Assistance, USAID, Building Resilience in the Horn of
Africa, USAID IMPACT blog, Dec. 19, 2011, available at http://
blog.usaid.gov/2011/12/building-resilience-in-the-horn-of-africa/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States response to chronic hunger through Title II
continues to be disproportionately low compared to the need, and
compared to resources provided for emergencies. Prior to the 2008 farm
bill, 75 percent of Title II resources were allocated to development
programs, but a weak waiver system allowed these resources to be
diverted for emergencies. Ultimately, development program funding
during this period was whittled down to only a small fraction of
overall Title II funding. To address this siphoning of development
funding, the 2008 farm bill authorized specific funding levels each
fiscal year \6\ and established a stronger waiver mechanism.\7\ Both of
these additions have greatly aided development programming by ensuring
a reliable funding source, and are generally referred to as the
``safebox.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 7 U.S.C. Sec. 1736f(e)(1).
\7\ This waiver requires following to occur before funds protected
by the development safebox can be used for emergencies: (1) the
President to determine that an extraordinary food emergency exists; (2)
resources from the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust be exhausted; and
(3) the President has to submit a request for additional appropriations
to Congress equal to the reduction in the safe box and Emerson Trust.
See, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 1736f(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is critical that development programs have steady and reliable
funding because they require a multiyear approach to achieve a
sustainable impact on chronic hunger. When funding levels shift
dramatically from year to year, it is hard to ensure program
objectives, like improved agricultural production or behavior changes
around nutrition practices, are met. Funding for development programs
should remain consistent with recent authorized and appropriated
amounts. CRS therefore requests that the Subcommittee direct $450
million to development programs in fiscal year 2013, the same level
authorized in fiscal year 2012. Furthermore, CRS requests that the
Subcommittee protect the integrity of the safebox by maintaining the
current waiver provision. We believe it is a common sense approach to
ensuring development funding is not siphoned off for emergencies unless
other emergency funding sources have been exhausted.
To make more efficient use of resources, CRS encourages the
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to consider making more cash
resources available within Title II funding.
Improving food security requires more than just food. Essential
complementary activities in development programs ensure that gains made
by food distribution programs can be sustained.\8\ For example, some
development programs provide new mothers with nutrition and sanitation
education so that good health practices continue even after programs
are completed. Programs also distribute food in exchange for community
work. These programs contribute to long-term food security by building
roads for better access to markets and by digging irrigation systems to
grow crops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Bonnard, P., et al. Report of the Food Aid and Food Security
Assessment: A Review of the Title II Development Food Aid Program
(2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complementary programs require cash funding to acquire basic inputs
such as tools, seeds, and building materials, as well as to hire
technical staff to train, mentor and support beneficiaries. However,
Title II does not provide cash funding to cover these expenses. Rather,
implementers like CRS engage in the practice of monetization, which is
the sale of U.S. in-kind food donations abroad to generate proceeds
that go to pay for program costs. Monetization is considered an
inefficient mechanism to pay for development programs because the costs
incurred to buy, ship, and sell U.S. commodities overseas are often
greater than the proceeds raised. In the absence of cash resources, CRS
values the use of monetization to support program activities, but to
address the inefficiencies of monetization CRS believes more cash
resources should be made available within Title II, which can be used
to fund the necessary complementary activities that are vital in
development programming.
One option to increase cash resources is to increase funding
available under the existing 202e provision of Title II, and broaden
the allowable uses of this funding source. Under the current
authorization of the farm bill, 202e permits up to 13 percent of Title
II funding to be provided in cash and used for a discrete set of
purposes related to program implementation.\9\ However, the limitations
placed on the use of 202e hamstring the ability of this mechanism to
provide necessary flexibility in program budgets. The Committee could
address this by expressly directing additional Title II funding to be
used for 202e, and allowing 202e to cover any type of program cost. If
the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee pursued this course, CRS
recommends that appropriations directed to 202e should be to up to 25
percent of overall Title II funding. Further, other options for
providing additional cash resources do exist, and CRS would be happy to
discuss these with the Subcommittee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 7 U.S.C. 1721(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To make more efficient use of resources, CRS encourages the
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to consider allowing the use of
Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) as a tool to implement emergency
and development programs under Title II.
The 2008 farm bill authorized a small 5-year pilot program for
Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) of food assistance.\10\ Recent
analysis conducted through Cornell University and implementing
organizations demonstrates that program activities undertaken as part
of the pilot can be cost-efficient, effective in saving lives during
emergencies, and enables communities to improve long-term food security
through development activities.\11\ More specifically, the pilot showed
that LRP can save money, varying by commodity, with the most cost
savings at 53 percent for cereals when compared to U.S. commodities.
LRP can also save time, reducing the transportation costs relative to
U.S. in-kind shipments by an average of 13.8 weeks. Further, several
development LRP interventions funded through the pilot program showed
that LRP has multiple potential benefits, including linking smallholder
food producers to markets, building local capacity for food processing,
milling and fortification, and expanding availability and access to
highly nutritious foods.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Currently USAID provides a limited level of assistance for
local and regional purchase in emergencies through the Emergency Food
Security Program funded in the International Disaster Assistance (IDA)
Account. Unlike the LRP Pilot Program, IDA funded LRP cannot be used
for non-emergency purpose.
\11\ Erin C. Lentz, Christopher B. Barrett, and Miguel I. Gomez,
``The Impacts of Local and Regional Procurement of U.S. Food Aid:
Learning Alliance Synthesis Report, ``Final Report: A Multidimensional
Analysis of Local and Regional Procurement of U.S. Food Aid,'' January
2012, available at http://dyson.cornell.edu/faculty_sites/cbb2/papers/
LRP%20Ch%201%20Lentz%20et%20al%2011Jan2012Update.pdf. Formally, this
collaboration was known as the Local and Regional Procurement (LRP)
Learning Alliance, which began as a collaboration among organizations
implementing LRP programs (Catholic Relief Services, Land O'Lakes,
Mercy Corps, World Vision) and Cornell University, to monitor and
analyze the market impacts of LRP. Since the closing of the LRP Pilot
Program, the Learning Alliance continues to work on knowledge sharing
to improve the efficacy of LRP as a whole, and has welcomed other LRP
implementers, including Fabretto Children's Foundation, International
Relief and Development, ACDI/VOCA, CARE and the United Methodist
Committee on Relief.
\12\ At present, food assistance programs authorized through the
farm bill allow implementing partners to purchase enriched, nutritious
products only if they are produced in the United States. By supporting
the development and production of locally procured foods, including
those used for therapeutic and targeted feeding programs, LRP can
address this gap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRS's LRP pilot program in Mali successfully integrated into an
existing school feeding initiative, and realized cost savings of 46
percent for peas and 62 percent for grains. In our program, LRP was
also timely by having food available at the beginning of the school
year. The program also had noteworthy developmental impacts; for
instance, through farmer field trainings, the program improved local
production and storage of harvests, and by purchasing locally sourced
foods the program helped develop a source for locally led school
feeding programs in the future.
The evidence to date demonstrates that LRP can have significant
benefits, though it also shows that LRP isn't necessarily appropriate
in all situations. The context of any food crisis should frame the
decision of which food assistance tool should be used. We simply
encourage the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to allow LRP
programming to be used as a tool within Title II, so that LRP can,
where appropriate, achieve cost savings in some Title II programs.
CRS requests that the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee
appropriate at minimum $250 million for the McGovern-Dole Food for
Education Program.
The McGovern Dole Food for Education (FFE) program supports
education, child development, and food security initiatives for some of
the world's poorest children through donations of U.S. food
commodities, as well as financial and technical assistance for school
feeding and nutrition projects. FFE has successfully increased school
enrollment by feeding school children. CRS recently implemented a FFE
program in Mali, serving 45,000 individuals over 3 years. In this
program more than 5 million meals, as well as vitamins and medications,
were distributed among 120 schools. Our program increased school
enrollment in targeted communities for boys from 26 percent to 32
percent and for girls from 39 percent to 55 percent. As education and
nutrition are inextricably linked to a promising future for all
children, CRS requests $250 million be appropriated for the FFE
program. By targeting the most poor and vulnerable early in their
lives, we hope to curb their need for U.S. assistance in the future.
Thank you for your many years of partnership with CRS and for this
opportunity to reiterate our values and report back to you on our
experiences.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
Waters from the Colorado River are used by approximately 35 million
people for municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate
approximately 4 million acres in the United States. Natural and man-
induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates environmental and
economic damages. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has estimated
the current quantifiable damages at about $300 million per year.
Congress authorized the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program
(Program) in 1974 to offset increased damages caused by continued
development and use of the waters of the Colorado River. Modeling by
BOR indicates that the quantifiable damages would rise to more than
$500 million by the year 2030 without continuation of the Program. The
USDA portion of the Program, as authorized by Congress and funded and
administered under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP),
is an essential part of the overall effort. A funding level at
approximately $18 million annually is required to prevent further
degradation of the quality of the Colorado River and increased
downstream economic damages.
Congress concluded that the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program should be implemented in the most cost-effective way. The
Program is funded under EQIP, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's
Basinwide Program, and a cost share for both of these programs provided
by the Basin States. Realizing that agricultural on-farm strategies
were some of the most cost-effective strategies,
Congress authorized a program for the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) through amendment of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act (Act) in 1984. With the enactment of the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA), Congress
directed that the Program should continue to be implemented as part of
the newly created Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Since the
enactment of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (FSRIA) in
2002, there have been, for the first time in a number of years,
opportunities to adequately fund the Program within 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, is to benefit Lower Basin
water users hundreds of miles downstream from salt sources in the Upper
Basin as the salinity of Colorado River water increases as the water
flows downstream. There are very significant economic damages caused
downstream by high salt levels in the water source. There are also
local benefits from the Program in the form of soil and environmental
benefits, improved water efficiencies and lower fertilizer and labor
costs. Local producers submit cost-effective proposals to the State
Conservationists in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado and offer to cost share
in the acquisition of new irrigation equipment. It is the act that
provides that the seven Colorado River Basin States will also cost
share with the appropriated funds for this effort. This has brought
together a remarkable partnership.
After longstanding urgings from the States and directives from
Congress, USDA has concluded that this Program is different than small
watershed enhancement efforts common to EQIP. In the case of the
Colorado River salinity control effort, the watershed to be considered
stretches more than 1,400 miles from the River's headwater in the Rocky
Mountains to the River's terminus in the Gulf of California in Mexico
and receives water from numerous tributaries. The USDA has determined
that this effort should receive a specific funding designation and has
appointed a coordinator for this multi-state effort.
In recent fiscal years, the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) has directed that about $18 million of EQIP funds be used for
the Program. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum)
appreciates the efforts of NRCS leadership and the support of this
Subcommittee. Colorado River water quality standards have been prepared
by the Forum, adopted by the States, and approved by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Forum has taken the position
that funding for the EQIP portion of the Program should be consistent
with the 3-year funding plan submitted by the three NRCS State
Conservationists for Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. This amount for 2013
is $18 million and includes both farm and technical assistance. Over
the last few fiscal years, funding has reached the needed level. State
and local cost-sharing is triggered by the Federal appropriation. In
fiscal year 2013, it is anticipated that the States will cost share
with about $7.7 million and local agriculture producers will add about
$5.5 million. Hence, it is anticipated that in fiscal year 2013 the
State and local contributions will be about 42 percent of the total
cost. The Basin States have cost sharing dollars available to
participate in funding on-farm salinity control efforts. The
agricultural producers in the Upper Basin are waiting for their
applications to be considered so that they might improve their
irrigation equipment and also cost share in the Program, and
specifically for the USDA portion of the effort which was added by
amendments to the act in 1984. It has been determined that the
agricultural efforts are some of the most cost-effective opportunities.
Since congressional mandates of more than three decades ago, much
has been learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River
system. BOR has conducted studies on the economic impact of these
salts. BOR recognizes that the damages to United States water users
alone are hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
The Forum is composed of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona,
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum
is charged with reviewing the Colorado River's water quality standards
every 3 years. In so doing, it adopts a Plan of Implementation
consistent with these standards. The level of appropriation requested
in this testimony is in keeping with the adopted Plan of
Implementation. If adequate funds are not appropriated, significant
damages from the higher salt concentrations in the water will be more
widespread in the United States and Mexico.
Concentrations of salt in the River cause approximately $300
million in quantified damages and significantly more in unquantified
damages in the United States and result in poor water quality for
United States users. Damages occur from:
--a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector,
--a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector,
--an increase in the use of water for cooling and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector,
--an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector,
--a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector,
--difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins, and
--increased use of imported water for leaching and cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
Over the years, NRCS personnel have developed a great working
relationship with farmers within the Basin. Maintaining salinity
control achieved by implementation of past practices requires
continuing education and technical assistance from NRCS personnel.
Additionally, technical assistance is required for planning and design
of future projects. Last, the continued funding for the monitoring and
evaluation of existing projects is essential to maintaining the
salinity reduction already achieved.
In summary, implementation of salinity control practices through
EQIP has proven to be a very cost effective method of controlling the
salinity of the Colorado River and is an essential component to the
overall Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. Continuation of
EQIP with adequate funding levels will prevent the water quality of the
River from further degradation and significantly increased economic
damages to municipal, industrial and irrigation users.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
This testimony is in support of funding for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and its on-farm Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program (Program) for fiscal year 2013. This program has been
carried out through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
(Public Law 93-320) (Act), since it was enacted by Congress in 1974.
Further, with the enactment of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and
Reform Act (FAIRA) in 1996 (Public Law 104-127), Congress directed that
the Program should continue to be implemented as one of the components
of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Finally,
Congress passed the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act (FCEA) in 2008,
that addressed the cost-sharing required from the Basin Funds, and
redesignated the cost-sharing requirement as the Basin States Program
(BSP). Currently, the BSP provides approximately 30 percent of the
total amount that will be spent each year by the combined EQIP and BSP
efforts.
The Salinity Control Program benefits both the Upper Basin water
users through more efficient water management and the Lower Basin water
users, through reduced salinity concentration of Colorado River water.
For example, California's Colorado River water users continue to suffer
economic damages in the hundreds of million of dollars per year due to
the current salinity of the Colorado River.
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 participates 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. In close
cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
pursuant to requirements of the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500),
the Forum is charged with reviewing the Colorado River's water quality
standards every 3 years. The Forum adopts a Plan of Implementation
consistent with these water quality standards. The level of
appropriation being supported in this testimony is consistent with the
Forum's 2011 Plan of Implementation. If adequate funds are not
appropriated, significant damages associated with increasing salinity
concentrations of Colorado River water will become more widespread in
the United States and Mexico.
Currently, the salinity concentration of Colorado River water
causes about $300 million in quantifiable damages in the United States
annually. Economic and hydrologic modeling by U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) indicates that the quantifiable damages could
rise to more than $500 million by the year 2030 without the
continuation of the Salinity Control Program as identified in the 2011
Plan of Implementation. For example, salinity 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.
In recent fiscal years, the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) has directed that about $18 million of EQIP funds be used for
the Salinity Control Program. The Colorado River Board respectfully
urges the Subcommittee to support funding for the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program for fiscal year-2013 at least at this level.
The Forum has taken the position that funding for the Program
should be consistent with the 3-year funding plan submitted by the
three NRCS State Conservationists for Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The
NRCS funding plan for 2013 is $18 million and includes both farm and
technical assistance program elements. It should also be pointed out
that State and local cost-sharing is triggered by Federal
appropriations. In fiscal year 2013, it is anticipated that the States
will cost-share with about $7.7 million and that local agriculture
producers will add another $5.5 million. Consequently, it is
anticipated that the fiscal year 2013 State and local contributions are
expected to be approximately 42 percent of the total Program costs.
In conclusion, the Colorado River Board of California recognizes
that the Federal Government has made significant commitments to the
seven Colorado River Basin States with regard to the delivery of
Colorado River water. In order for those commitments to continue to be
honored, it is essential that Congress continue to provide funds to the
USDA to allow it to provide needed technical support to agricultural
producers for addressing salinity control activities in the Colorado
River Basin. Over the past 28 years, the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control program has proven to be a very cost-effective and
collaborative approach to help mitigate the impacts of the salinity of
Colorado River water. Continued Federal funding of the USDA elements of
this important Basin-wide program is essential to maintaining this
effort.
______
Prepared Statement of Colorado State University
Mister Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record. I am
writing to share my concerns regarding a recently recognized fungal
canker disease that poses an enormous economic and ecological risk to
our Nation's walnut resources. Over the past decade, thousand cankers
disease (TCD) has caused the death of thousands of black walnut trees
in nine western States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon,
New Mexico, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington) and recently has been
discovered in Tennessee, Virginia and Pennsylvania. The negative
economic impacts of TCD are felt by our Nation's timber, nut and
nursery producers, furniture manufacturers, and private landowners.
While States are attempting to stop the spread of TCD through surveys
and quarantines, greater Federal oversight and funding are needed. I
request dedicated funding be allocated to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Plant Protection and Early Detection and Rapid Response
programs for fiscal year 2013 for the study and management of TCD.
What is TCD?
TCD results from the combined activity of a fungus (Geosmithia
morbida) and the walnut twig beetle (Pityophthorus juglandis). As the
beetle moves through a tree's twigs, branches and main stem it creates
galleries beneath the bark of the branches and introduces the fungal
spores. Numerous cankers develop and disrupt the flow of nutrients
throughout the tree. Over time the tree is unable to store and move
nutrients and starves. The most likely pathway for transmission of TCD
is through the movement of raw wood (logs, firewood, stumps, burls and
wood packaging materials) with bark attached. It is not known whether
transmission to the eastern United States occurred through natural
dispersal or by human transport of twig beetle infested walnut
products.
Need for Greater Federal Funding and Oversight
At the Federal level, pests and diseases similar to TCD are
addressed by the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Within APHIS, the Plant
Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) program is primarily responsible and
has the regulatory authority for all pests coming to the Nation's
borders and the interstate movement of regulated pests. The USFS
oversees the Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) program, which
detects new invasive species infestations and support the
infrastructure necessary to rapidly contain or eradicate these
infestations.
To date, USDA has provided some funding and technical assistance
for TCD, mainly through fiscal year 2010 farm bill funding for survey,
detection and mitigation methods. However, it has not identified TCD as
an actionable pest as was done with the emerald ash borer and Asian
long horned beetle and it has determined that Federal regulatory
oversight of TCD would be challenging due to the interstate movement of
products, poor detection capability and the widespread distribution of
the disease. I believe that it is for these reasons that greater
Federal oversight and funding is needed.
Funding Needs
Funding for basic research to study the life history, biology and
behavior of the walnut twig beetle and the fungus is needed and would
inform and improve management of the disease. Examples of priority
research needs include developing an effective lure for the walnut twig
beetle, the development of data and maps that would inform where the
pest is most likely to migrate, and evaluating methodologies on
survival of the insect and the pathogen after debarking and kiln drying
or other treatments.
I thank the committee for this opportunity to provide testimony on
this important subject. Please do not hesitate to contact me/us if you
should require additional information.
______
Prepared Statement of Copperhead Hill Ranch--John A. and Karen M.
Buchanan, Owners
Mister Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record. I am
writing to share my concerns regarding a recently recognized Thousand
Cankers Disease (TCD) that poses an enormous economic and ecological
risk to our Nation's black walnut resources. Over the past decade, TCD
has caused the death of millions of black walnut trees in nine western
States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, New Mexico,
Nevada, Utah, and Washington) and recently has been discovered in the
native walnut range (Tennessee, Virginia and Pennsylvania). The USDA-
APHIS has estimated the standing value of walnut timber as being $539
billion. This does not include potential loss of: Jobs related to
logging, transportation, and domestic milling; derivatives of the
domestic milling industry to make veneer and lumber for furniture,
cabinetry, paneling, flooring, and gun stocks; export market accounts
for about 60 percent of the harvested logs; and nuts are shelled into
nutmeats and the shells are processed for many industrial uses.
The negative economic impacts of TCD will be felt by private
landowners with immature walnut timber and by home owners with millions
of walnut trees in residential areas of the Midwest and Eastern States.
It will be any ugly site and very expensive to safely remove all the
walnut trees as they succumb to TCD over the next couple of decades if
this disease is not contained, suppressed, and locally eradicated.
Research efforts to date have been limited to monitoring, ecological
studies of the walnut twig beetle, epidemiology of the fungal pathogen,
and development of phyto-sanitation treatment of walnut logs harvested
in quarantined areas. Insecticide and fungicide application is not
feasible or practical as a means of controlling the spread of TCD.
Development of biological insect control of the walnut twig beetle is
expected to be the most effective and feasible technique in stopping
the advancement of TCD through the native range of black walnut.
While States are attempting to stop the spread of TCD through
surveys and quarantines, greater Federal assistance and funding are
needed. I request dedicated funding be allocated to the USDA-ARS for
leadership in the development of biological insect control techniques
of the walnut twig beetle and to the USDA-FS for continued efforts in
monitoring for TCD for fiscal year 2013.
What is TCD?
TCD is a recently recognized disease in which a tiny walnut twig
beetle (Pityophthorus juglandis) spreads a fungal organism (Geosmithia
morbida) that causes cankers under the bark which prevents nutrient
flow to the foliage leading to dieback of branches and ultimately death
to the tree. While the walnut twig beetle advances only a mile or two
per year, humans are the vector that spread TCD great distances within
days by hauling walnut slabs with fresh bark attached that harbor the
tiny beetles and fungal spores. Such shipments are believed to be the
reason TCD moved into the native walnut range from the western States.
Movement of firewood, logs, stumps, and burls with fresh bark attached
can spread the disease great distances.
Need for Greater Federal Funding and Specific Directives
The USDA-APHIS considers both the walnut twig beetle and the fungal
pathogen to be indigenous to the USA (historical evidence shows them to
reside on a different walnut species in Arizona and New Mexico). Since
neither is considered exotic to the USA, APHIS is not productively
serving any role in combating TCD.
Federal funding needs to be directed to the USDA-ARS to lead
research and development of techniques that will contain, suppress, or
potentially locally eradicate the walnut twig beetle. Additional
funding needs to be directed to the USDA-FS for continued effort in
monitoring and development of phyto-sanitization treatment of walnut
logs harvested in quarantined areas.
I thank the committee for this opportunity to provide testimony on
this important subject. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you
should require additional information.
______
Prepared Statement of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
On behalf of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and the approximately
30,000 people with cystic fibrosis (CF) in the United States, we are
pleased to submit the following testimony to the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies requesting sufficient funding for
the Food and Drug Administration in fiscal year 2013. This testimony
urges the Committee to provide the Food and Drug Administration the
funding it needs to quickly and efficiently review treatments for CF
and other rare diseases and encourages the FDA to reach out on a more
systematic basis to outside experts early in the drug development
process. Additionally, the CF Foundation urges the Committee to support
collaborative efforts by the FDA and the National Institutes of Health,
such as the Regulatory Science Initiative and the FDA-NIH Joint
Leadership Council. Collaboration between the NIH and FDA has the
potential to help move innovative new drugs more quickly through the
development process and into the hands of patients.
In particular, the Foundation wishes to commend the speed with
which the FDA approved KalydecoTM, a breakthrough treatment
for cystic fibrosis that is the first to address the underlying genetic
cause of the disease for 1,200 people with CF who carry a specific
genetic mutation. The agency reviewed and approved Kalydeco's New Drug
Application in only 3 months--one of the fastest approvals of any drug
in the history of the agency. The speed with which this review was
conducted is a testament to the FDA's commitment to collaboration with
Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Kalydeco's developer, and the Cystic Fibrosis
Foundation, as well as its commitment to the patients who are already
benefiting from the drug. The science behind Kalydeco has opened
exciting new doors to research and development that may eventually lead
to a cure for all people living with CF.
About Cystic Fibrosis
Cystic fibrosis is a life-threatening genetic disease for which
there is no cure. People with CF have two copies of a defective CFTR
gene, which causes the body to produce abnormally thick, sticky mucus
that clogs the lungs and results life-threatening lung infections. This
mucus also obstructs the pancreas, preventing pancreatic enzymes from
assisting in the breakdown of food and the absorption of nutrients.
The mission of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation is to find a cure for
cystic fibrosis and improve the quality of life for people living with
the disease. This is accomplished by funding life-saving research and
working to provide access to quality care and effective therapies for
people with CF. Through the Foundation's efforts, the life expectancy
of a child with CF has doubled in the last 30 years. Although real
progress toward a cure has been made, the lives of young people with CF
are still cut far too short.
The promise for people with CF lies in research. The CF Foundation
has raised and invested hundreds of millions of dollars in private
money to help develop CF drugs and therapies and nearly every CF drug
available today was made possible because of the Foundation's support.
The Foundation accredits a nationwide network of over 110 CF care
centers that has been widely recognized as a national model for
specialized treatment of a disease.
Sustaining Funding for Rare Disease Drug Review at the FDA
Funding for Rare and Orphan Disease Drug Review
In order to encourage swift review of drugs for CF and other rare
diseases, we urge the Committee to recommend sufficient funding for the
Food and Drug Administration, particularly the Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (CDER)'s Office of New Drugs, in fiscal year
2013.
To be effective, the FDA needs an adequate number of reviewers with
the appropriate skills and expertise to evaluate therapies for rare
diseases like cystic fibrosis. Additional support for the FDA through
increased funding not only ensures that the Nation has a safe and
effective supply of drugs and devices, but also that the agency can
give the necessary attention to reviewing therapies that treat small
populations and serve specific unmet medical needs.
It is more critical than ever that Congress significantly increase
funding for the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) at the
FDA and for the agency as a whole in fiscal year 2013 so that it can
meet its statutory obligations in a timely manner.
Accelerating the Rare Disease Drug Review Process at the
FDA
The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation applauds the FDA and Associate
Director for Rare Diseases Dr. Anne Pariser in particular for their
attention to rare disease drugs and sensitivity to the unique
challenges posed by the evaluation of these treatments.
As we reap the benefits of the mapping of the human genome,
treatments like Kalydeco are being developed that target smaller and
smaller populations. This aspect of personalized medicine holds the
promise to treat or cure rare diseases and subsets of more common
diseases that plague millions of Americans.
However, as the scientific landscape changes, it is important that
the FDA has access to the expertise it needs to swiftly review
innovative new treatments. FDA review officials have taken steps to
improve access to scientific expertise during the review of therapies
that treat rare diseases, and FDA leaders and review staff have been
willing to engage in constructive dialogue to address the challenges of
rare disease review. The agency has taken part in productive
conversations with researchers and patients at the CF Foundation,
including with many of the world's foremost experts on cystic fibrosis,
on the development and review of potential therapies to treat cystic
fibrosis and on topics separate from specific drug review, such as
improving tools for Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs). In particular,
the collaboration showcased during the review of Kalydeco is an
excellent example of how the FDA, a drug sponsor, patients and external
experts can work to effectively evaluate new drugs and accelerate the
approval process.
However, in some cases the opportunity for public comment is not
available if the product in question is not the subject of an advisory
committee. In all cases, this public comment period occurs very late in
the review process. While FDA review divisions do conduct some
consultations with external experts separate from the advisory
committee process, the complexity and diversity of applications for
rare disease therapies suggest that the agency would benefit from more
regular consultation with extramural experts early in the review
process. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation asks that the Committee
encourage the FDA to reach out on a more systematic basis to outside
experts early in the drug development process.
One such strategy the House of Representatives is considering is
the proposed Expanding and Promoting Expertise in Review of Rare
Treatments (EXPERRT) Act, H.R. 4156. CFF strongly supports the EXPERRT
Act, which establishes a program to facilitate FDA outreach to external
experts earlier and throughout the drug review process on issues such
as unmet medical need, genetically targeted treatments, disease
severity, clinical trial design and patient demographics.
Additionally, the CF Foundation urges the Committee to support
collaborative efforts by the Food and Drug Administration and the
National Institutes of Health, such as the Regulatory Science
Initiative and the FDA-NIH Joint Leadership Council. Collaboration
between the NIH and FDA has the potential to help move innovative new
drugs more quickly through the development process and into the hands
of patients by ensuring that the FDA has the resources, strategies, and
tools it needs to efficiently review and regulate drugs in this ever
changing scientific landscape. As treatments like Kalydeco are being
developed to target specific genetic mutations and smaller and smaller
populations, it is important that the FDA has the expertise it needs to
quickly move these drugs through the review process.
The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation's unique and successful drug
development model for creating treatments for a rare disease has helped
create a robust pipeline of potential therapies to fight cystic
fibrosis. The Food and Drug Administration has played a critical role
in this process, working with the Foundation as they review treatments
and move them into the hands of patients. Encouraged by our successes,
we believe the experience of the CF Foundation in clinical research can
serve as a model of drug discovery and development for research on
other orphan diseases and we stand ready to work with the FDA and
congressional leaders. On behalf of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, we
thank the Committee for its consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Farmers Market Coalition
The Farmers Market Coalition (FMC) represents more than 2,700
farmers markets across the United States, as well as the more than
30,000 farmers that depend upon them. We seek to build viable
agricultural economies by expanding farmers' marketing choices while
expanding consumers' opportunities to purchase fresh, locally grown
foods. Herein, we urge you to fully fund both the Farmers Market
Promotion Program and the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program.
Farmers markets have grown in response to consumer demand in recent
years, emerging as cornerstones in more than 7,100 communities across
the United States. Markets are extending their seasons into winter
months, too, offering farmers income throughout the year. Uniquely,
they have the potential to bridge urban and rural divides,
strengthening the fabric of our country while addressing the
nutritional needs of Americans at every income level. The percentage of
SNAP dollars redeemed at farmers markets, for example, is increasing as
more markets become EBT-equipped and program participants choose to use
their benefits there. For this reason, FNS and AMS programs that
facilitate the sector's growth are of critical importance not just to
farmers, but to families, and community economies. FMC urges the
following:
Reauthorize and increase funding for the Farmers Market Promotion
Program.--The ripple effects of the FMPP program are impressive,
providing small infusions of funding to communities and groups of
farmers in all 50 States since 2006. These awardees grow capacity,
increase farmer income, help new entrepreneurs get started in feeding
their local communities, and build local partnerships for long-term
viability. However, the program is highly competitive, funding only 444
of the Nation's 7,100 farmers markets since 2006. With rural jobs on
the line, and the nascent local food sector in need of training,
capacity building, and technical assistance, now is not the time to
turn our backs on a program with such far-reaching positive impacts, as
illustrated in recent Senate Agriculture Committee briefings and
testimonies.
We urge you to reauthorize funding for the Farmers Market Promotion
Program, and increase funding to $20 million annually so that it can
fully serve farmers markets and the many farmers choosing to begin
marketing to consumers in their local communities.
Restore full funding to the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program
(WIC FMNP).--In 2010, WIC FMNP served more than 2.1 million WIC
families, bringing more than $22 million in income directly to more
than 18,000 small and mid-scale produce farmers. Proposed cuts of $3.5
million to this important program threaten access to fresh local
produce for WIC eligible clients in 45 State agencies, Territories and
Indian Tribal Organizations. For example, in Wisconsin alone, WIC FMNP
provided fresh fruits and vegetables to approximately 100,000 women and
their children in 2011, simultaneously providing $864,037 in additional
income to 1,552 participating Wisconsin produce farmers. Proposed cuts
to this effective win-win program would mean thousand fewer families in
need having access to nutritious, locally grown produce, and many
hardworking farmers unable to serve them.
New York State, which serves almost 400,000 WIC mothers and their
children, calculated the devastating impact of these proposed WIC FMNP
cuts on their agricultural sector. They estimate that small family
farmers in the State would lose approximately $1.1 million in revenues.
We urge you to restore WIC FMNP funding to $20 million for fiscal
year 2013.
Thank you for your consideration of this testimony, and, on behalf
of the Farmers Market Coalition Board of Directors and members, thank
you for all you do on a daily basis to support America's family
farmers.
______
Prepared Statement of Florida Home Partnership, Inc.
On behalf of Florida Home Partnership, I wish to thank you for
accepting this testimony on Rural Housing Funding for fiscal year 2013.
Florida Home Partnership, Inc. (FHP) is a nonprofit Community Housing
Development Organization (CHDO). Our mission is to provide low and
moderate income families affordable, quality-built, energy efficient
homes in communities that offer long-term value and comfort. I am
urging the Appropriations Subcommittee to fund the following USDA Rural
Housing Programs at the higher of fiscal year 2012 levels or the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget request: (1) $900 million for
Section 502 Family Direct Homeownership Loans, (2) $30 million for
Section 523 Self-Help Housing Program, and (3) $13 million for the
Rural Community Development Initiative. The Section 502 Loans provide
affordable mortgage opportunities for low-income rural Americans, while
the Section 523 funds allow Self-Help Housing grantees across Rural
America provide technical assistance to Rural Americans engaged in
building their own homes through USDA's Mutual Self-Help Housing
Program.
FHP administers the USDA Mutual Self-help Program in the rural
areas of Hillsborough and Pasco Counties in Florida. The impact of this
service asserts a positive result in four areas: Affordable quality
housing for low- to moderate-income families; Green Built and Energy
Star certified homes conserve precious resources; safe and affordable
housing instills higher goals for the future of youth and teens; and
the Mutual Self-help Program sustains and stimulates the local economic
environment.
With the support of the USDA Mutual Self-Help Program, Florida Home
Partnership guides groups of 6 to 10, low- to moderate-income families
to work together to help build each other's homes. In the past 15
years, over 500 homes and 5 communities have been built. Leveraging
dollars from the USDA Mutual Self-Help Program, the State of Florida's
Home Ownership Pool and down payment assistance through Hillsborough
and Pasco Counties, Federal funds enable FHP to efficiently operate a
very complex yet effective program. FHP has successfully administered
over $65 million to implement this USDA affordable housing program.
Family members of the groups share the common goal of homeownership
and commit themselves to share in the work that will make that goal a
reality. When all homes in the construction group are completed, all
homeowners are authorized to move into their new homes on the same day,
creating an instant community.
Families and individuals contribute a minimum of 600 hours of
``sweat equity'' in the construction of their new homes in exchange for
their down payment. Hard work is the key, along with a willingness to
work cooperatively with other participants. No construction experience
is necessary! Participants perform a variety of unskilled and semi-
skilled tasks from digging the foundation, to carpentry, painting,
electrical and plumbing activities through construction clean-up and
landscaping--along with everything in between! Our knowledgeable family
construction coordinators (who themselves have gone through the
program) guide participants through the construction process all the
while teaching the participants many new skill sets. Friends, family,
church members, and others help these families accomplish the labor
requirements. Therefore, it becomes a community endeavor to complete
all the homes in a group.
Each Self Help Home is currently being built as a GREEN Certified
home, and is constructed to Exceed Energy Star Standards. To date, FHP
has constructed over 150 GREEN and Energy Star Certified homes. These
homes conserve energy resources for our country, and just as
importantly, conserve the precious financial resources of the low-
income rural clients we serve. Many of the Self-Help Housing
organizations across America build their homes to these same GREEN and
Energy Conserving Standards.
FHP provides services before, during and after to assure the
success of the families. Services provided ``during'' the application
process include homeownership education, improving credit, and
understanding the responsibilities of homeownership. Once the home is
built, homeowners are also educated and encouraged to become active
with their homeowners association to assure their community remains a
quality and safe neighborhood. FHP recently hosted a Parliamentary
Procedure Training class for interested homeowners and to train new and
seasoned HOA board members.
While FHP provides safe housing and encourages community
involvement, the groundwork is being laid to support a positive outlook
for youth and teens in the community. The youth of our communities have
witnessed the hard work of their parents leading to the accomplishment
of the American Dream, homeownership. We have had multiple experiences
where children growing up in our decent affordable self help housing
communities, have gone on to build self help homes of their own. These
children have learned that hard work and perseverance do pay off.
The USDA Mutual Self-help Program has also had a positive impact on
the local economy. In addition to a staff of 17 employees, in which 58
percent are Self Help Homeowners, FHP has been able to regularly
subcontract with small family owned, mid-size and chain store
businesses. A great portion of the $65 million has been circulated to
these various businesses since our inception in 1993. Consequently, as
a primary client for many businesses, including Home Depot, in the
Ruskin, Florida area, FHP has contributed to supporting jobs throughout
its rural service area.
The value of the Mutual Self-Help Housing Program has inherent
benefits that provide answers to other social problems in our society
by meeting the needs of affordable, quality and energy-efficient
housing that provides safe environments for our rural families.
Accordingly, the program also prepares the children of these homeowners
with the tools to change their collective destinies; all while creating
and maintaining meaningful jobs for rural Americans.
______
Prepared Statement of the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology
The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
(FASEB) respectfully requests a fiscal year 2013 appropriation of $325
million for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) within
the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. This funding level
matches the recommendation made in the President's fiscal year 2013
budget request. FASEB's broader goal is to support sustainable growth
so that AFRI funding reaches its authorized level of $700 million as
soon as feasible.
As a federation of 26 scientific societies, FASEB represents more
than 100,000 life scientists and engineers, making it the largest
coalition of biomedical research associations in the United States.
FASEB's mission is to advance health and welfare by promoting progress
and education in biological and biomedical sciences through service to
its member societies and collaborative advocacy. FASEB enhances the
ability of scientists and engineers to improve--through their
research--the health, well-being, and productivity of all people.
As the Department of Agriculture's premier competitive grants
program, AFRI supports agricultural research, education, and extension
projects at public land grant universities and other institutions
nationwide. In order to optimize the effectiveness of its resources,
AFRI facilitates collaborative, interdisciplinary research to address
key societal problems and build foundational knowledge in high-priority
areas of the food and agricultural sciences. AFRI also encourages young
scientists to pursue careers in agricultural research by providing
research funding for over 1,700 of the Nation's most promising pre- and
postdoctoral scholars.
According to the results of a recent study published in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, global food demand is
expected to double by the year 2050. The world must meet the increasing
need for food while simultaneously providing better nutrition, new
biofuel materials, sustainable farming practices, and greater food
safety. The effective coordination of research, education, and
extension activities like those supported by AFRI enables efficient
translation of scientific discoveries into a broad range of
applications to overcome some of our most daunting food and agriculture
challenges. For example, a team of scientists supported by AFRI are
discovering the biological processes that determine how warm
temperatures affect corn seed development and crop production. With
this knowledge, researchers can develop hardier genetic variants of
corn that are able to overcome the negative effects of heat stress and
produce higher yields--advances which will be important for maintaining
an adequate food supply. Other AFRI-funded scientists are studying the
genomes of soilborne microorganisms responsible for damaging soybeans
and other crops. By understanding the pathogen's ability to harm
plants, research and extension specialists can develop methods to
manage the disease, increase crop production, and assist farmers, who
lose an estimated $300 million to soybean root and stem rot diseases
each year. AFRI also makes critical contributions to improving human
health; scientists are using multidisciplinary approaches to examine
the process by which disease-causing E. coli are released from the
digestive tracts of cattle into the food supply. Research on the
genetic, microbial, and environmental factors that cause the bacteria
to spread throughout livestock populations enables scientists to devise
new strategies for reducing cattle infections and preventing food
contamination.
Robust AFRI funding will also help attract talented young
scientists to careers in agricultural research. A new AFRI-sponsored
fellowship program has been established to help train and develop the
next generation of agricultural, forestry, and food scientists and
educators. In its first year of funding, the program awarded a total of
$6 million to 54 students from 32 universities across the country.
Fellows are already advancing important research projects, including a
study to identify sources of microbial contamination in imported foods.
Agricultural research directly benefits all sectors of society and
every geographic region of the country. Furthermore, the private sector
relies on public investments in USDA research to increase productivity,
improve crops, and train future cohorts of agricultural scientists. The
estimated value of U.S. agricultural exports increased 32.2 percent
between fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2010, illustrating the growing
demand for agricultural products worldwide, and yet the AFRI budget has
stagnated since the program was established with an authorized funding
level of $700 million in the 2008 farm bill. In fiscal year 2010,
AFRI's limited resources could only support 40 percent of project
proposals recommended for funding by review panels, and the program
remains significantly underfunded relative to its current capacity. The
fiscal year 2012 AFRI budget of $264 million is woefully inadequate to
ensure viability of a research enterprise at the core of human
prosperity.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer FASEB's support for AFRI.
FASEB is composed of 26 societies with more than 100,000 members,
making it the largest coalition of biomedical research associations in
the United States. Celebrating 100 Years of Advancing the Life Sciences
in 2012, FASEB is rededicating its efforts to advance health and well-
being by promoting progress and education in biological and biomedical
sciences through service to our member societies and collaborative
advocacy.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville,
Inc.
Mister Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to present our statement supporting funding for the USDA's
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and especially for its flagship
research facility, the Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural
Research Center (BARC), in Beltsville, Maryland. We strongly recommend
full fiscal year 2013 funding support for research programs at
Beltsville.
We begin our recommendations, Mr. Chairman, by drawing attention to
Agriculture Secretary's Tom Vilsack's February 13, 2013, remarks on the
proposed fiscal year 2013 budget: ``USDA has supported farmers,
ranchers and growers so that last year they enjoyed record farm income.
. . . To help sustain record farm income, we will invest in research
and development to improve agricultural productivity. [And continue]
support for in-house research and the land grant universities. We'll
continue our efforts to combat destructive pests and disease that
threaten crops and livestock.
Following a Department-wide review of operations, we created a
Blueprint for Stronger Service to make USDA work better and more
efficiently for the American people. We found savings in areas like
technology, travel, supplies and facilities. We've been able to avoid
the interruptions in service that come with furloughs and employee
layoffs.
The Blue Print for a Stronger Service holds out substantive agency-
wide impacts for the Agricultural Research Service as a whole as well
as for Beltsville in particular. The agency is streamlining its
business operations, consolidating activities such as human resources
and procurement into three ``business service centers.'' In fiscal year
2011, ARS cut its travel costs by approximately 28 percent from the
past year, and the ARS printing fund has been cut by more than half.
While continuing to serve the research needs of American agriculture
and the Nation, ARS is committed to ``doing more with less.''
We strongly endorse the remarks of Secretary Vilsack and the
purposes and goals of the Blue Print for a Stronger Service. Overall,
ARS will close 12 of its research programs at 10 locations in 2012,
none of them at Beltsville--a recognition of the outstanding research
conducted at Beltsville.
Beltsville--the Nation's premier agricultural research center--has
spearheaded technical advances in American agriculture for over 100
years. Beltsville celebrated 100 years of research leadership and
technical advances in 2010. The long list of landmark research
achievements over that time is truly remarkable. Still at the threshold
of its second century, Beltsville stands unequalled in scientific
capability, breadth of agricultural research portfolio, and
concentration of scientific expertise. Under the leadership of Director
Dr. Joseph Spence and with its powerful scientific capability, the
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center is distinctively, indispensably
prepared for the challenges that lie ahead.
Toward that end, the scientists of Beltsville have developed a new,
bold vision for the future. Titled Innovation and Integration:
Agricultural Research for a Growing World, this visionary document
stems from the realization that broader, multidisciplinary approaches
will be needed to address new, perhaps unforeseeable agricultural
challenges of the future. New approaches will be needed to reach beyond
the confines of traditional research approaches tied to narrow issues
or specific commodities. Traditionally, for instance, plant scientists
may have worked in some combination with animal scientists or with
human nutritionists. Only rarely, however, have scientists combined
efforts across many disciplines to solve problems. Given its broad
research portfolio and its many disciplines, Beltsville is perfectly
situated for broad, multidisciplinary approaches to flourish. Thus, in
every way, Beltsville remains and will continue to be a national Center
of Excellence for the highest agricultural research priorities.
We are aware of the financial constraints facing our country. We
are aware, too, of urgent demands for funding among compelling national
priorities. Securing ample, safe, and nutritious food--food security--
has always been the most compelling of human priorities. That is true
today, and it will be no less so in the years ahead. Commentators such
as Robert Samuelson speculate that as much as oil, scarce food could
shape global politics for decades to come. In summation, Mr. Chairman,
we strongly support adequate funding for Beltsville. We would
respectively suggest that adequate funding for the Agriculture
Department's flagship research center is central to maintaining
national and world food security.
Priorities in the President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request
Now, Mr. Chairman, we turn to key research areas highlighted in the
President's proposed budget. We strongly recommend this proposed
funding. Our recommendation is consistent with the remarks of Secretary
Vilsack.
We were pleased to see that the fiscal year 2013 budget includes
increases for environmental stewardship; crop breeding and protection;
animal breeding and protection; food safety; and human nutrition.
Obviously, these are areas of great concern to all Americans, and they
are certainly among the highest priorities for agricultural research
today. All of these research areas are strengths of the Beltsville
Agricultural Research Center and they will benefit well from the unique
facilities and scientific expertise at the Center. We encourage you to
seriously consider funding the proposed budget and to ensure that
Beltsville receives the funding that it needs to address these critical
research needs.
Although funds are not requested for major facilities projects in
the fiscal year 2013 budget, we would like to bring to your attention
the urgent need for renovation of Building 307 on the Beltsville
campus. The Center has aggressively moved to consolidate space and
reduce costs and has been very successful at doing so. However, these
plans require the renovation of a building--Building 307--that was
vacated some years ago in anticipation of a complete renovation. In the
past, Congress approved partial funding for this renovation, and those
monies were retained pending appropriation of the full amount required
for the renovation. Unfortunately, those funds now have been lost to
ARS. Consequently, renovation of this vacant, highly useful building is
on indefinite hold. While we realize that funding is extremely tight,
we confirm that Beltsville urgently needs a renovated Building 307 for
adequate, high quality lab space. Moreover, a renovated Building 307
would not only yield substantial energy savings, but also would allow
Beltsville to move forward with other long-delayed relocation and
consolidation plans.
In summation, we would highlight these spheres of excellence:
Animal Breeding and Protection.--Beltsville conducts extensive
research on animal production and animal health. The research center is
the foundation of genetic improvement in dairy cow production.
Beltsville is examining ways to prevent resistance to drugs for animal
parasite prevention and control.
Crop Breeding and Protection.--Beltsville scientists have an
extensive record of ongoing research relating to protecting crops from
pests and emerging pathogens. Beltsville has distinctive expertise for
identifying pathogens, nematodes, and insects that destroy crops or
make crops ineligible for export. Beltsville houses the Germplasm
Resource Information Network, the United States coordinating body to
identify and catalog plant germplasm.
Child and Human Nutrition.--The Beltsville Human Nutrition Research
Center (BHNRC) is the Nation's largest, most comprehensive Federal
human nutrition research center; unique activities include the What We
Eat in America survey, which is the Government's nutrition monitoring
program, and the National Nutrient Databank, which is the gold standard
reference of food nutrient content that is used throughout the world.
These two activities are the basis for food labels, nutrition education
programs, food assistance programs including SNAP, the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, school feeding programs, and Government
nutrition education programs.
Global Climate Change.--Beltsville became actively engaged in
climate change research long before climate change became a topic of
intense media interest. Beltsville scientists are at the forefront of
climate change research--understanding how climate change affects crop
production and the effects of climate change on growth and spread of
invasive and detrimental plants (such as weeds.) A central aim is
finding ways to mitigate negative effects of climate change on crops.
Beltsville houses unequalled facilities for replicating past climates
or climates that may exist in the future.
Plant, Animal, and Microbial Collections.--Beltsville houses
matchless national biological collections that are indispensable to the
well-being of American agriculture. In addition to the actual
collections, Beltsville scientists are internationally recognized for
their expertise and ability to quickly and properly identify insect
pests, fungal pathogens, bacterial threats, and nematodes. This
expertise is crucial to preventing loss of crops and animals, ensuring
that invasive threats to American agriculture are identified before
they can enter the country, thus helping to protect homeland security,
and ensuring that American exports are free of pests and pathogens that
could prohibit exports. Also, Beltsville houses the National Animal
Parasite collection and has the expertise to identify parasites that
are of importance to agricultural animals.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement. Thank you for
consideration and support for the educational, research, and outreach
missions of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.
______
Prepared Statement of the Global Health Technologies Coalition
Chairman Kohl, Ranking Member Blunt, and members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal year
2013 appropriations funding for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). We appreciate your leadership in global health, and we hope that
your support will continue. I am submitting this testimony on behalf of
the Global Health Technologies Coalition (GHTC), a group of nearly 40
nonprofit organizations working together to advance U.S. policies that
can accelerate the development of new global health innovations--
including new vaccines, drugs, diagnostics, microbicides, multi-purpose
technologies, and other tools--to combat global health diseases and
conditions. The GHTC members strongly believe that to meet the world's
most pressing global health needs, it is critical to invest in research
today so that the most effective health solutions are available now and
in the future. We also believe that the U.S. Government has a historic
and unique role in doing so. My testimony reflects the needs expressed
by our member organizations, which include nonprofit advocacy
organizations, policy think-tanks, implementing organizations, product
development partnerships (PDPs), and many others.\1\ We strongly urge
the Committee to continue its established support for global health
research and development (R&D), as well as product safety by (1)
sustaining and supporting the U.S. investment in global health
research, product development, and global regulation; (2) instructing
the FDA to prioritize the review and licensure of global health
technologies; and (3) requiring leaders at the FDA to put plans in
place to ensure that global health product regulation is efficient,
coordinated, and streamlined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Global Health Technologies Coalition. http://
www.ghtcoalition.org/coalition-members.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Need for New Global Health Tools
Every day, more than 35,000 people die from AIDS, tuberculosis
(TB), malaria, and other neglected diseases. The health detriments
these diseases cause, even when not fatal, have profound implications
in other areas such as economic stability and access to education. This
highlights the urgent need for sustained investment in global health
research to deliver new tools to combat these devastating diseases.
While drugs and other health technologies exist for these diseases,
many have grown ineffective due to increasing drug resistance and
toxicity or are costly and difficult to administer in poor, remote, and
unstable settings. While we must increase access to proven, existing
drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, and other health tools to tackle global
health problems, it is just as critical to develop the next generation
of tools to fight existing disease and address emerging threats such as
malaria, dengue, and drug-resistant TB. There are several very
promising technology candidates in the R&D pipeline; however, these
tools will never be available if the support needed to continue R&D is
not supported and sustained.
Innovation as a Smart Economic Choice
Global health R&D brings lifesaving tools to those who need them
most; however, the benefits are much broader than preventing and
treating disease. It is also a smart economic investment in the United
States, where it drives job creation, spurs business activity, and
benefits academic institutions. Biomedical research, including global
health, is a $100 billion enterprise in the United States. In
Washington State, $4.1 billion is generated annually from global health
activities, including R&D. In North Carolina, the economic impact from
global health is roughly $2 billion. It is important that the U.S.
Government support industries, such as global health R&D, which exhibit
such strong potential to build the economy at home and abroad. Global
health R&D has been an important legacy of USAID's work for over three
decades, and should be supported and protected. History has shown that
investing in global health research not only saves lives but also
produces cost-savings and efficiencies. In the United States alone, for
example, polio vaccinations during the last 50 years have resulted in a
net savings of $180 billion. New therapies to treat drug-resistant TB
have the potential to reduce the price of treatment by 90 percent and
cut health system costs significantly. The United States has made smart
investments in research in the past that have resulted in lifesaving
breakthroughs for global health diseases, as well as important advances
in diseases endemic to the United States. It is essential that we keep
this momentum going and not allow this research to lag behind, in order
to maximize the resources we have put into these programs. We must now
build on those investments to turn those discoveries into new vaccines,
drugs, tests, and other tools.
Advancing Global Health Product Development
Because private industry does not invest significantly in the
development of products for diseases for which there are no lucrative
markets, a host of new organizational models and incentive mechanisms
have emerged to address this challenge, with varying success.
One organizational model that has proven promising is the product
development partnership (PDP). PDPs are a unique form of a public-
private partnership established to drive greater development of
products for neglected diseases. Currently, there are more than 26 PDPs
developing drugs, vaccines, microbicides, and diagnostics that target a
range of infectious and neglected diseases, including HIV/AIDS,
malaria, TB, Chagas disease, dengue fever, and visceral leishmaniasis.
While each PDP operates differently depending on its disease
area(s) of focus, they typically employ a portfolio approach to R&D to
accelerate product development by pursuing multiple strategies for the
same disease area. They also work in close partnership with academia,
large pharmaceutical companies, the biotechnology industry, and with
regulatory and other Government agencies in developing countries.
PDPs are delivering on their promise to develop lifesaving products
for use in countries where disease burdens are highest and no viable
commercial markets exist. To date, PDPs have developed and licensed 16
products to combat neglected diseases in low- and middle-income
countries. More can be expected from PDPs in the future with sustained
and additional support: in 2009, PDPs had more than 120
biopharmaceutical, diagnostic, and vector-control candidates in various
stages of development, including 32 in late-stage clinical trials. In
the next 5 years, it is anticipated that several new technologies could
be ready for use or in final stages of clinical development.
For example the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine candidate, manufactured
by GlaxoSmithKline and co-developed with the PATH Malaria Vaccine
Initiative, has produced positive results in clinical trials thus far,
and could be available for general implementation for infants in Africa
within 5 years or so. Such a vaccine would significantly reduce the
burden of sickness and death from malaria. Additionally, six TB vaccine
candidates are in clinical trials worldwide, including the first late-
stage infant study of a TB vaccine in more than 80 years. There are
also several new TB drug candidates in testing, which, if approved,
would become the first new TB drugs in nearly 50 years. These therapies
could help reduce the 8 million new TB infections and nearly 1.7
million TB-related deaths that happen each year. Also, a vaccine
candidate and drug candidates are currently in clinical trials to
prevent and treat visceral leishmaniasis, a neglected disease whose
current treatments are costly and toxic. Additionally, two artemisinin
combination therapies--the gold standard of malaria drug treatment--
developed in partnership with Medicines for Malaria Venture have
recently been approved and will be reaching those in need in the near
future.
Global Health Product Development Challenges
Developers of products intended for the developing world face
challenges in three key areas:
First, capacity to conduct as well as adequately regulate clinical
trials does not exist or is often weak in countries where diseases are
endemic. Second, there is a lack of financing for late-stage clinical
trials, which are necessary for testing the efficacy and safety of new
tools. And third, the approval process for new products for neglected
diseases is poorly coordinated and involves multiple, complex steps.
Global regulatory systems are not sufficiently streamlined and the
capacity of regulatory authorities to approve products for the
developing world is frequently weak. Therefore, regulatory review and
introduction of new safe and effective products takes longer than
necessary.
The FDA has demonstrated through a number of recent actions that it
can have an impact on the introduction of global health tools. These
include:
--The FDA's program to review HIV/AIDS drugs delivered in the
developing world through the U.S. President's Emergency Plan
for AIDS Relief.
--The release of guidance documents that outlined the FDA's
willingness to review vaccines and other products for diseases
not endemic to the United States.
--The agency's partnership with global bodies, such as the World
Health Organization (WHO), to enhance access to medicines for
the developing world and assist other countries in bolstering
their regulatory capacity.
--The FDA's Priority Review Voucher Program, which awards a voucher
for future expedited product review to the sponsor of a newly
approved drug or biologic that targets a neglected tropical
disease (NTD).
--The FDA's Office of Critical Path Initiatives, which supports the
development of regulatory science such as biomarkers and animal
models to better evaluate and register new TB tools.
--The FDA's issuance of a guidance for testing new anti-TB drugs in
combination, which accelerates the development of new, safe,
and highly effective treatment regimens with shorter therapy
durations.
The FDA's efforts in these areas are to be applauded. The agency
can and should continue to increasingly leverage its expertise to
benefit the millions of people affected by infectious diseases around
the world.
Recommendations
Support for global health research that saves lives around the
world--while at the same time promoting innovation, creating jobs, and
spurring economic growth at home--is unquestionably one of the Nation's
highest priorities. In keeping with this value, the GHTC respectfully
requests that the Committee do the following:
--Sustain and support U.S. investments in the FDA's funding
resources, as well as its capacity to provide technical advice
to other regulatory bodies and review and license health
products for diseases not usually endemic to the United States,
and its authority to fund research and development for global
health technologies, including but not limited to those created
though the Critical Pathways Initiative.
--Instruct all U.S. agencies in its jurisdiction involved in global
health to prioritize R&D within all development programs by
creating actions plans, including metrics to measure progress.
We request that leaders at the FDA to work with leaders at
other U.S. agencies, including the State Department, U.S.
Agency for International Development, the National Institutes
of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and
the Department of Defense to ensure that efforts in global
health R&D are coordinated, efficient, and streamlined. This
should include establishing transparency mechanisms designed to
show what global health R&D efforts are taking place and how
U.S. agencies are collaborating with each other to make
efficient use of the U.S. investment, and align with the goals
and intentions of the recently released Health and Human
Services Global Health Strategy.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ HHS Global Health Strategy. http://www.globalhealth.gov/global-
programs-and-initiatives/global-health-strategy/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Direct that the results of these initiatives should be reported on
to Congress and be made publicly available. Past reports of the
health R&D activities at U.S. agencies have helped coordinate
efforts between agencies and transparently inform the public
about the investment of taxpayer money. These reports must be
continued in the future and should include information on all
U.S. Government agencies involved in global health R&D.
We respectfully request that the Committee consider inclusion of
the following language in the report on the fiscal year 2013
Agriculture and FDA appropriations legislation: ``The Committee
recognizes the critical contribution that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) funding for new global health tools and its
leadership in reviewing and licensing global health technologies makes
to the impact of new global health technologies, and also recognizes
the need to sustain and support U.S. investment in this area by fully
funding the FDA to carry out this work. The Committee acknowledges the
FDA's essential role in capacity-building abroad to help build strong
regulatory authorities in other nations, and asks that the FDA continue
and expand on this work. New global health products are cost-effective
public health interventions that play an important role in improving
global health and are vital in protecting the lives of Americans and
populations abroad. The Committee directs the FDA to expand its
outreach and information-sharing activities with product developers--
including but not limited to industry groups, nonprofit organizations,
and other product development partnerships (PDPs)--to support the
development of safe and effective global health tools. Further, the
Committee directs the FDA to submit a report to Congress and the public
outlining the monitoring, evaluation, and progress of its `Pathway to
Global Product Safety and Quality' as it pertains to products outlined
in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 740(c) of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-80). In its review of drugs
and other products for neglected diseases, the Committee requests that
FDA:
--Maximize the use of priority review where feasible and appropriate.
--Work with sponsors to facilitate expanded access to investigational
products.
--Increase coordination and interaction with the World Health
Organization, European Medicines Agency, and other
international regulatory agencies.
--Implement mechanisms for enhanced collaboration between the FDA and
national regulatory authorities in developing countries.
--Increase coordination among individual drug, biological product,
and device review divisions across FDA centers to support the
development and monitoring of safe and effective medical
products for rare and neglected diseases.
The Committee is also aware that Chagas disease is not on the list
of neglected diseases as currently defined by the FDA. The Committee
urges the FDA to make the necessary modifications to include Chagas
disease in its list of neglected diseases in line with the World Health
Organization (WHO) list of neglected tropical diseases. The Committee
is pleased with FDA's current activities in the areas of regulatory
capacity-building and the promotion of sound regulatory science
practices abroad, and recommends that the FDA explore how to expand on
such activities.''
On behalf of the members of the GHTC, I would like to extend my
gratitude to the Committee for the opportunity to submit written
testimony for the record.
______
Prepared Statement of the Housing Development Alliance, Inc.
On behalf of Housing Development Alliance, Inc. and the communities
we serve, I wish to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to
submit testimony on fiscal year 2013 Appropriations for the Department
of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Housing Programs. I urge this subcommittee
to fund USDA Rural Housing's Section 502 Single Family Direct Loan
Program at $900 million (the fiscal year 2012 level); Section 504 Very-
Low Income Rural Housing Repair Loans at $28 million; and Section 504
Very-Low Income Rural Housing Repair Grants at $29.5 million.
Housing Development Alliance, Inc. (HDA) serves Perry, Knott,
Leslie and Breathitt Counties in Kentucky. These are among four of the
poorest counties in the Nation with poverty rates ranging from 24
percent to over 33 percent. In these four counties over 12,650
households have annual incomes of less than $25,000 including over
5,100 households with incomes less than $10,000. Furthermore, these
counties suffer from persistent poverty (having more than 20 percent of
population in poverty for more than five decades) which has resulted in
a poor housing stock and a broken housing market. In short, our
community has a critical need for safe, decent and affordable housing.
Since 1996, the Housing Development Alliance has constructed 90 new
homes which were sold to qualified low and very-low income homebuyers
who received financing through the Section 502 Single Family Direct
Loan Program. In this same period, the Housing Development Alliance has
repaired nearly 180 homes using Section 504 Loan and Grants. These
programs often serve the poorest of the poor. In fact, the average
annual income of our Section 502 Direct Loan homebuyers was $14,252 and
the average annual income of our Section 504 Loan and Grant repair
client was $10,660 per year.
In many cases the living conditions of the households prior to
receiving assistance are deplorable. These homes often lack an adequate
heat source; have little or no insulation; often have major structural
defects including collapsing foundations, rotting floors and walls and
leaking roofs; have unsafe electrical wiring; and lack complete
plumbing. For example recently the Housing Development Alliance
encountered an elderly woman whose gas water heater was spewing
potentially deadly levels of carbon monoxide into her home and another
elderly woman whose tub/shower was not hooked to the sewer and was
draining directly under her home.
However, the benefits of these programs are not limited to just to
the households purchasing the new home or receiving the affordable home
repair. The programs provide jobs and other needed economic activity to
our community. For example, in 2011 the constructed seven homes
financed in part by the Section 502 Single Family Direct Loan Program.
Using the National Association of Home Builders' estimate that each
home constructed creates/preserve 3 construction job per year, in 2011
the Housing Development Alliance's use of Section 502 Direct Loans
created/preserved 21 construction jobs. Even more jobs were created/
preserved through our use of the Section 504 Repair Loans and Grants
which funded 14 home repairs. While these numbers may seem modest, as
they are repeated in rural communities throughout America these
programs have a huge impact on jobs in rural America.
Furthermore the Section 502 Single Family Direct Loan Program is
the most cost effective Federal housing program. Despite serving low
and very-low income households, the average lifetime cost of a Section
502 Single Family Direct Loan is just $7,200 while the average cost of
Section 8 Housing Assistance is nearly $7,000 per year. This low cost
is due in part to the fact that Section 502 Direct portfolio maintains
an excellent repayment history with a foreclosure rate of just over 4
percent.
The administration and others have suggested that the Section 502
Guarantee Program is a suitable alternative to the Section 502 Direct
Loan Program; this is simply not true in our community. We completed a
study of our 502 Direct Loan Program recipients and found that only 1
out of 10 would have been able to afford the higher interest cost
associated with a Section 502 Guarantee Loan.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony on the
critically important programs. Without adequate funding for these
programs low income households will remained trapped in substandard, if
not outright deplorable, housing and construction and other related
jobs will be lost across rural America.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hunger Task Force
I am writing to provide comments on the fiscal year 2013
Agriculture Appropriations bill.
Hunger Task Force is a nonprofit, independent food bank located in
Milwaukee County. We have been feeding emergency food free of charge to
needy people in southeastern Wisconsin since 1974. Last year we
distributed 9.8 million pounds of food to programs in our network.
Currently, our network of 81 food pantries, soup kitchens and
homeless shelters is providing food to over 35,000 people per month in
our food pantry network, and we are serving over 60,000 hot meals in
our soup kitchen network each month. We have seen an 11.9 percent
increase in the number of people using our food pantries in the last 12
months. The numbers do not surprise us as 1-in-3 City of Milwaukee
residents continue to live at or below the poverty level, and 1-in-2
Milwaukee children live at the poverty level. Milwaukee County's 2-1-1
IMPACT emergency hotline says that the number one reason people call
them (27 percent of all calls) is to connect to an emergency food
provider. A record 272,661 Milwaukee County residents (1-in-5 residents
in the county) now receive FoodShare benefits. In Wisconsin, a record
831,000 people now receive FoodShare benefits. A recent report by our
State's Department of Public Instruction notes that the percentage of
children in Wisconsin receiving free and reduced-price meals has
increased 8 consecutive years--a record 41 percent of Wisconsin's
children now receive free and reduced-price meals, and in the City of
Milwaukee a record 83 percent of students now receive subsidized meals.
The increasing poverty and ongoing demand for emergency food in
southeastern Wisconsin and throughout the State make the Federal
nutrition and commodity programs more important than ever.
Hunger Task Force continues to be involved in many of the Federal
nutrition programs. We have been a contracted provider of TEFAP foods
since 1999, and we have implemented the CSFP (we call it StockBox)
since 2003. TEFAP and CSFP commodity foods now account for 75 percent
of the food we distribute every year. We coordinate 100 StockBox sites
in southeastern Wisconsin at which 9,300 low-income seniors receive
monthly box deliveries to their doorstep. The CSFP boxes are incredibly
important to the seniors we serve. A recent survey of our StockBox
beneficiaries told us that 39 percent of recipients would eat less, go
hungry or have a hard time obtaining enough food in they could no
longer obtain a StockBox. Another 21 percent of StockBox beneficiaries
mentioned that they would have to look for additional assistance, such
as meal sites or food pantries, if they did not receive a StockBox each
month.
Hunger Task Force has also administered the Senior Farmers Market
Nutrition Program since 2004. Last year we distributed 3,200 vouchers
to needy seniors in Milwaukee County. We know Milwaukee's seniors value
these vouchers, as 91 percent of the vouchers were redeemed in 2011.
Hunger Task Force has also been actively involved in improving and
expanding participation in programs such as SNAP (Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program), School Lunch and School Breakfast, WIC
(Women, Infants and Children), CACFP after-school suppers, and the SFSP
(Summer Food Service Program). For example:
--We worked with the Milwaukee Public School district to pilot and
then expand a universal-breakfast-in-the-classroom program.
This program now provides free breakfast every day to all MPS
schoolchildren in 87 schools--over 25,000 children per day now
receive this benefit.
--We have spearheaded a local coalition that provides summer meals
(including suppers) to low-income children in Milwaukee. This
summer feeding initiative, which is in large part subsidized by
the Kohl's Corporation, provided over 720,000 meals (including
89,000 suppers) to needy children last summer.
--We continually strive to ``modernize'' FoodShare programming in
Milwaukee County. Since 2009, through our three satellite self-
service locations, we have helped over 47,000 people apply for
FoodShare or retain benefits. We also have received Federal/
state SNAP Outreach Grant funding to ensure that all people
eligible for SNAP benefits receive them.
--We worked with Senator Kohl's office to bring the CACFP after-
school supper program to Wisconsin in 2009. Currently, 36 MPS
schools provide more than 40,000 after-school suppers each
month to schoolchildren.
--We have been a member of the Wisconsin WIC Advisory Committee since
2000. As a member, we work with local practitioners and State
officials to ensure that WIC participation is maximized for
those who are eligible. We also have begun attempting to work
with State officials on a transition to EBT, and we have
conducted outreach in our network around the new WIC food
package.
Our experience with the Federal nutrition programs is diverse and
extensive. We see the value of these programs to the people who need
benefits, as well as to the service providers and local economy. In
general, we are very pleased with President Obama's fiscal year 2013
Proposed Budget for USDA's nutrition programs. In particular:
--We support continued investment in the SNAP, including a
continuation of State options to suspend time limits on SNAP
for able-bodied adults without dependent children and
restoration of cuts to SNAP benefits made in the 2010 child
nutrition bill.
--We support the increased investment in the SFSP and WIC Program,
including an increase in the cash value vouchers for fruits and
vegetables for children from $6 to $8 per month.
--We support the competitive grants to fund school meal equipment
needed for the implementation of the new school meal standards
and expansion of the School Breakfast Program.
--We are supportive of the $187 million provided to support the
existing CSFP caseload, but disappointed that CSFP is not made
into a seniors-only program. We also would like to see a
seniors-only CSFP expanded to all 50 States.
--We are supportive of the increased funding for TEFAP (both
commodity purchases and administrative funding).
--We are disappointed that the budget does not provide increased
investment in the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program and
WIC FMNP. Although we provided SFMNP vouchers to 3,200 needy
seniors last year, poverty among the elderly continues to grow
and we could easily triple the number of distributed vouchers
with additional Federal funding. Also, the WIC FMNP is proposed
to receive a 30 percent reduction, which will impact families
who need healthy and nutritious produce as well as small
farmers at farmers markets that operate in low-income
communities.
As an experienced emergency food provider and advocacy-driven
organization, we ask that you consider our comments as you move forward
with fiscal year 2013 budget deliberations. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Jon Janowski,
Director of Advocacy.
______
Prepared Statement of the Izaak Walton League of America
The Izaak Walton League of America appreciates the opportunity to
submit testimony concerning appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for
various agencies and programs under the jurisdiction of the
Subcommittee. The League is a national, nonprofit organization founded
in 1922. We have more than 39,000 members and 250 community-based
chapters nationwide. Our members are committed to advancing common
sense policies that safeguard wildlife and habitat, support community-
based conservation, and address pressing environmental issues. The
League has been a partner with farmers and a participant in forming
agriculture policy since the 1930s. The following pertains to
conservation programs administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (farm bill) was
enacted with a prominent commitment to increased mandatory conservation
spending. It was bipartisan and supported by more than a thousand
diverse organizations engaged in farm bill policy. We urge the
Subcommittee to maintain the mandatory spending levels for conservation
programs as provided in the farm bill. The League strongly opposes the
administration's proposal to cut essential conservation programs,
unilaterally reducing the farm bill baseline for fiscal year 2013 and
beyond.
The League is concerned that the administration's budget would
deprive farmers and ranchers of conservation and environmental
stewardship assistance in fiscal year 2013 and reduce the farm bill
conservation baseline. These programs benefit producers through
improved soil quality and productivity of their land, and the American
people through cleaner air and water and healthy habitat. Reducing the
farm bill baseline in the face of increasing future demands for
resource protection and productivity is counterproductive.
The League and its members across the country are especially
focused on the following core conservation programs:
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).--The Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) reduces soil erosion, protects water quality, and
enhances habitat through long-term contracts with landowners that
convert highly erodible cropland to more sustainable vegetative cover.
The administration's fiscal year 2013 budget for CRP proposes a
reduction in the farm bill authorized acreage limit from 32 million to
30 million. It is encouraging to see the announcement of a general
sign-up in fiscal year 2012, and the special provision for 1 million
acres of wetland and grassland restoration, but that does not alter the
proposed cut to CRP's mandatory authorization for fiscal year 2013.
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP).--The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)
provides technical and financial assistance to landowners to restore
and protect wetlands on their properties. Wetlands are generally
conserved through permanent or 30-year easements purchased by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Unfortunately, the administration takes no
action to request new farm bill funding for WRP, which expires with the
current farm bill authorization in fiscal year 2012. The League urges
Congress to continue the decades-long commitment made to the goals of
the program.
Grassland Reserve Program (GRP).--The Grassland Reserve Program
(GRP) focuses on limiting conversion of pasture and other grasslands to
cropland or development while allowing landowners to continue grazing
and other operations that align with this goal. Again, the League is
disappointed that the administration has not proposed continuing GRP or
any form of the program beyond fiscal year 2012. The League opposes
this reduction because it will undermine efforts to protect one of the
country's most threatened natural resources.
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP).--The Conservation
Stewardship Program (CSP) is a comprehensive approach to conserving
soil, water, and other natural resources across a range of lands,
including cropland, prairie, and forests. CSP makes conservation the
basis for a producer to receive Federal financial support rather than
limitless subsidies for intensive production of a few crops. It is
troubling that the administration's fiscal year 2013 budget is
proposing to cut the mandatory spending for CSP by $68 million. The
League opposes this cut because CSP is a comprehensive, whole-farm
approach to conservation that can maximize benefits to natural
resources, fish and wildlife, and producers alike.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP).--The Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program helps agricultural landowners develop habitat for
upland wildlife, wetland wildlife, threatened and endangered species,
fish, and other wildlife. The President's fiscal year 2013 proposal
also seeks to permanently reduce the mandatory commitment established
for WHIP in the farm bill. The budget would cut fiscal year 2013
funding for WHIP by $12 million. The League opposes this damaging cut
to a program with the central goal of supporting wildlife resources in
rural America.
Finally, effective implementation of farm bill conservation
programs depends upon adequate technical resources to work with
landowners in addressing their unique environmental concerns. Although
conservation programs are available, under-investment in technical
assistance limits agency support to assist farmers and ranchers in
selecting and optimizing appropriate programs for their operations. The
technical expertise of the Natural Resource Conservation Service and
partners that assist in the delivery of programs and technical
assistance directly to landowners is necessary for the adoption and
maintenance of conservation practices. We request that the Subcommittee
support the mandatory levels of conservation program funding as
provided in the farm bill to enable robust technical resources to
implement those programs successfully.
We appreciate the opportunity to testify in strong support of fully
funding agricultural conservation programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Little Dixie Community Action Agency, Inc.
LDCAA is requesting adequate funding provided to support $900
million in lending authority for the Section 502 Single Family Direct
Loan Program. It is disappointing to see the USDA relinquish the
section 502 direct loan program. The section 502 direct loan program
has far exceeded in successful outcomes any other Federal homeownership
program. No other Federal program can equal the profile of families
served: approximately 60 percent of the families receiving section 502
loans have incomes of less than 60 percent of the median income, and 40
percent of families participating in the program have incomes that do
not exceed 50 percent of the median income.
Despite serving families with limited economic means, the section
502 direct loan program is the most cost effective affordable housing
program in the Federal Government. In fiscal year 2010, the total per
unit cost for a homeownership loan to a low income family was less than
$5,000. This stands in significant contrast to the Section 8 Rental
Assistance program with the annual per unit costs exceeding the total
Federal expense of a section 502 direct loan.
Section 523 Mutual Self-Help Housing Program
LDCAA is requesting national funding of $30 million for the Section
523 Mutual Self-Help Housing Program. Currently, more than 100
organizations across America participate in the self-help housing
program. These organizations unite groups of 8 to 10 self-help families
who work collectively in the construction of each family's home. They
perform approximately 65 percent of the overall construction labor.
This ``Sweat Equity'' results in each homeowner earning and gaining
instant equity in their homes. It also makes a significant investment
in their community often resulting in the building of homes and
neighborhoods together. And despite the fact that self-help families
constitute the lowest incomes of participants in the section 502
portfolio, data demonstrates that these families prove to have the
lowest rates of default and delinquency.
For the past 3 years, self-help housing organizations have
constructed almost 3,500 homes. This construction has in turn led to
more than 11,000 jobs, more than $738 million in local income and $77
million in taxes and revenue in rural communities across the Nation as
evidenced from economic impact numbers from the National Association of
Homebuilders.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lummi Nation
Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal year 2013 Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies
appropriations. The following are the requests and priorities of the
Lummi Nation.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Lummi Nation is located on the northern coast of Washington
State, and is the third largest Tribe in Washington State serving a
population of over 5,200. The Lummi Nation is a fishing Nation. We have
drawn our physical and spiritual sustenance from the marine tidelands
and waters for hundreds of thousands of years. Now the abundance of
wild salmon is gone, and the remaining salmon stocks do not support
commercial fisheries. Consequently, our fishers are trying to survive
off the sale of shellfish products. In 1999 we had 700 licensed fishers
who supported nearly 3,000 tribal members. Today, we have about 523
remaining. This means that over 200 small businesses in our community
have gone bankrupt in the past 15 years. This is the inescapable
reality the Lummi Nation fishers face without salmon. We were the last
surviving society of hunters/gatherers within the contiguous United
States, but we can no longer survive living by the traditional ways of
our ancestors.
GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT PROTOCOL
Executive Order No. 13175.--The United States has a unique legal
and political relationship with Indian tribal governments, established
through and confirmed by the Constitution of the United States,
treaties, statutes, executive orders, and judicial decisions. In
recognition of that special relationship, pursuant to Executive Order
13175 of November 6, 2000, executive departments and agencies
(agencies) are charged with engaging in regular and meaningful
consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development
of Federal policies that have tribal implications, and are responsible
for strengthening the government-to-government relationship between the
United States and Indian tribes.
LUMMI SPECIFIC REQUESTS
Rural Development Loan Fund
Tribal Financing and Access.--It is critical that Tribal
governments acquire affordable and assessable financing for
infrastructure development, to build facilities that provide tribal
governmental services to our member and other governmental projects.
Tribes must have equitable access and the same loan eligibility
criteria as counties and States. Currently, existing loan criteria is
inequitable and obligates valuable Tribal financial resources that
otherwise would be allocated to providing needed services to our
community.
Water Supply.--Phase 1 funding of +$2 million, for a new Water
Supply System--Increase in funding for Hatchery construction, operation
and maintenance. Funding will be directed to increase hatchery
production to make up for the shortfall of wild salmon.
The Lummi Nation currently operates two salmon hatcheries that
support tribal and non-tribal fishers in the region. The tribal
hatchery facilities were originally constructed utilizing Federal
funding from 1969-1971. Understandably most of original infrastructure
needs to be repaired, replaced and/or modernized. Lummi Nation Fish
Biologists estimate that these facilities are currently operating at 30
percent of their productive capacity. Through the operation of these
hatcheries the Tribe annually produces 1 million fall Chinook and 2
million Coho salmon. To increase production, we must pursue a ``phased
approach'' that addresses our water supply system first. The existing
system only provides 850 GPM to our hatchery. To increase production to
a level that will sustain tribal and non-tribal fisheries alike, we
need to increase our water supply four-fold. A new pump station and
water line will cost the Tribe approximately $6 million. We are
requesting funding for the first phase of this project. Our goal is to
increase fish returns by improving aquaculture and hatchery production
and create a reliable, sustainable resource to salmon fishers by
increasing enhancement.
Lummi Nation needs financial resources to develop comprehensive
water resources conservation and utilization plans that accommodates
the water needs of its residents, its extensive fisheries resources.
To ensure related to the removal of wild stocks from the salmon
available for harvest are compensated through increased hatchery
construction, operations and maintenance funding.
Job Development.--The Lummi Nation needs support of its
comprehensive Fisherman's Cove Harbor and Working Water Front Project
which addresses Indian Energy, Economic and Workforce Development needs
of the Lummi Nation membership.
Unemployment on the reservation has been very difficult to address
with limited on-reservation jobs. Tribal governments need to be able to
meet the employment and training needs of our membership as well as the
business development needs of our communities. This is the objective of
the Lummi Nation Fisherman's Cove Harbor and Working Waterfront
Project. We need financial assistance to enable our membership to get
the job skills the local (Reservation and Non-Reservation) labor market
demands. We ask the Committee to direct the Bureau to require this
Office to work with the Lummi Nation to fully develop the Working
Waterfront Project for the benefit of the Lummi Nation fishers, members
and others invested in the marine economy of the extreme northwest
corner of the United States.
USDA--Natural Resources Conservation Service
Treaty Reserved Rights.--The Lummi Nation and other western
Washington tribes are in danger of losing our treaty reserved rights.
At risk are our constitutionally protected treaty reserved rights to
harvest salmon. Because of the diminishing salmon populations and
subsequently constrained tribal harvests--all due to the inability to
restore salmon habitat faster than it is currently being destroyed and
limitation on hatchery production to mitigate for lost natural
production. To stop this habitat degradation, we are requesting that
our Federal trustee to implement their fiduciary duties by better
protecting salmon habitat. By fulfilling these essential Federal
obligations, it is our hope that our salmon resource--the foundation of
our cultures, our economies, and our rights--will be restored. We are
urging the following action:
--Require that all Federal funding for agricultural BMPs are
contingent upon agreement to imp implement full suites of NMFS/
USFWS/EPA's western Washington BMP performance standards.
--Consult with NMFS regarding the impacts of agricultural subsidy
programs on western Washington salmon.
--Fund tribal riparian easement and fee simple habitat conservation
acquisitions.
--Make the production of traditional tribal foods eligible for
agricultural subsidy and conservation programs.
FAMILY AND CHILDREN WELLNESS
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.--Lummi Nation needs
assistance to develop and implement our tribal program to take full
advantage of the National School Lunch Program reimbursement by having
our tribal traditional foods eligible for reimbursement/subsidy.
Child Abuse and Neglect.--Poverty is the primary factor in
predicting incidents of child abuse and neglect. When the whole family
is living in a car or a camper or in a low income house sparsely
furnished house stimulation for positive mental, physical and emotional
child development is absent. Poverty starts a downward spiral that is
further fueled by the lack of traditional teachings, which values
working together, not competing with one another. The first and most
important step in reversing this trend is a job. Jobs not only change
the life of the one who gets the job, but the lives of everyone in
their family and positive impact to the community. The reverse is also
true when jobs are lost. Over the last 10 years over 300 hundred small
fishing businesses operated by members of the Lummi nation have
financially failed. The people employed and families supported by these
businesses are unemployed without access to unemployment insurance.
Most of these people have replaced their employment with access to
TANF, GA and other related income transfer programs. Lummi Nation needs
financial assistance to insure that every Lummi Nation members who
needs a job has access to a job.
Domestic Violence.--Poverty starts a downward spiral that is
further fueled by the lack of traditional teachings, which values
working together and not competing with one another. Domestic Violence
is a function of poverty and a lack of traditional values about the
most prominent difference in our lives is the difference between men
and women. Traditionally both are considered sacred functions and
cannot be pre-empted by the other. The first and most important step in
reversing this trend is a job.
Elder Abuse.--Lummi Nation is concerned that incidents of elder
abuse have been identified in our community. The Lummi Nation is
committed to identify conditions which lead to and support elder abuse
and eliminating those conditions from the community. Those elders who
have secured social security payments are often the only family member
with cash income. As the head of a family they are looked to support
others who do not have a cash income. When the available resources do
not match required expenditures month after month tension builds and
tragic incidents result. Lummi Nation needs financial assistance to
insure that all of its members who need jobs have jobs. This is the
best way to insure that our elders may live in our community without
harm.
Thank you again for this opportunity to provide you with the
priorities and requests of the Lummi Nation.
Hy'shqe.
______
Prepared Statement of the Massachusetts Vegetable & Flower Grower
U.S. agriculture is made up of hundreds of crops of which only a
dozen or so are considered major crops. The rest are referred to as
minor or specialty crops and form the backbone and bloodline of our
country's food supply. The commodity groups supporting this letter
represent those who grow all the high quality vegetables and fruits we
eat, the herbs and spices that add flavor to our lives, and the flowers
and landscape plants that make America a beautiful place to live. All
crops require pest control whether grown organically or conventionally.
Due to cost of meeting EPA standards, which ensure all pest control
compounds are safe to both human health and the environment, it is
often economically unfeasible to commercialize pest control products
for minor markets without public support. The limited acres on which
these crops are grown do not provide the economic incentive for the
private sector to register these products on our crops. Recognizing the
need for the Government to assist with pest management in specialty
crops, the IR-4 \1\ Project was created nearly 50 years ago to help
America's specialty crop growers. The IR-4 Project is widely considered
to be a model program with a history of successfully providing
specialty crop growers with needed production tools and has deep
support throughout the agricultural community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Friends of IR-4 is a large diversified assemblage of
commodity/agricultural organizations that rely upon and support the IR-
4 Project as it currently exists. For more information, go to
www.saveir-4.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe the IR-4 Project has become one of the most efficient,
indispensable and reliable Government programs ever developed. Simply
put, specialty crops cannot economically survive without the IR-4
Project. Since the IR-4 Project is so crucial to our existence, we felt
great alarm and deep concern when the fiscal year 2013 President's
budget proposal for the USDA National Institute Food and Agriculture
(NIFA) was proposing to transfer the IR-4 budget line item (Minor Crop
Pest Management in Research and Education Activities) into a proposed
new Crop Protection Program which includes five integrated pest
management (IPM) programs. This proposed elimination of dedicated
funding for the IR-4 Project will have profound negative impacts on
production costs for all specialty crops and will result in
unsustainable economic losses to growers, food processers and,
ultimately, the consumers.
We support the logic and financial considerations behind the
proposal to consolidate five similar Integrated Pest Management
Programs into the proposed Crop Protection Program. However, we believe
that the Crop Protection Program is not the appropriate place to merge
IR-4 due to its distinct objectives, which do not dovetail into the
other IPM programs.
We offer the following reasons why we are adamantly opposed to this
move:
--The five Focus Areas for the proposed Crop Protection program, as
documented in the Explanatory Notes, which was submitted to
Congress in the President's budget, do not include the primary
IR-4 mission of ``supporting the development of appropriate
data to facilitate registration of sustainable pest management
technologies for specialty crops and minor uses''. Thus, it
appears that USDA does not intend to continue to support the
regulatory approvals of new crop protection chemicals and
biopesticides for food and nonfood specialty crops in the
proposed Crop Protection Program. We consider this change to be
a serious threat to specialty crop agriculture in the United
States.
--IR-4 is exempt from indirect cost recovery by the host land-grant
universities under 7 U.S.C. 450i(e), the NIFA grant currently
provided to fund IR-4. The proposed Crop Protection Program
transfers funds to Integrated Activities which would allow up
to 30 percent indirect cost recovery. If IR-4 is included as
part of the Crop Protection program, it means a 30 percent
decrease in funds available for IR-4 project. This funding
decrease is a very threatening proposition for specialty
agriculture and is something that we cannot accept.
--IR-4 does much more than crop protection chemical testing. IR-4
collaborates with:
--USDA-Foreign Agricultural Service.--To reduce the impact of
pesticide residues in/on specialty crops from being a
barrier of trade for U.S. grown exports.
--Department of Defense.--To prevent sickness/death within deployed
U.S. military forces who are exposed to insect pests which
transmits diseases to humans by facilitating the
availability of public health pesticides.
--USDA-APHIS.--To perform collaborative research to combat invasive
pests.
--USEPA.--To review IR-4 submitted data to help with their
priorities to provide new technology to reduce the risk
from pesticides.
--Department of Commerce/OMB.--IR-4 is involved in a critical
project supporting the U.S.-Canada agreement to accomplish
key objectives of the Regulatory Cooperation Council.
--IR-4 food residue research often takes 3 to 5 years to complete,
involves highly trained staff that are proficient with USEPA's
Good Laboratory Practices regulations, and requires expensive
analytical instruments. This is vastly different from NIFA's
typical research grants. Restructuring or eliminating IR-4 and
abandoning numerous ongoing studies would be extremely
expensive and a waste of already appropriated taxpayer money.
--Investment in IR-4 has yielded a huge return on investment. Since
its inception, IR-4 has facilitated the registration of over
25,000 crop uses. The Michigan State University Center for
Economic Analysis (Dec. 2011) determined that for a total
budget of $18 million (USDANIFA and other public/private
sources), IR-4 efforts contribute over $7.2 billion to annual
U.S. Gross Domestic Product and supports 104,650 U.S. jobs.
These comments are on behalf of the 88 undersigned commodity
associations/grower groups who represent American specialty
agriculture. Collectively, we represent growers with operations in
almost every congressional district of every State. Our operations are
a huge driver in American agriculture; the farm gate value of specialty
crops is over $67 billion annually. For more information on this topic
please see: www.saveir-4.org.
In summary, the proposed consolidation of the IR-4 Project into the
Crop Protection Program significantly hurts growers of food and non-
food specialty crops and our food systems. It will lead to higher
prices for the food that enhances health, and plants that enhance the
environment. Consolidating IR-4 with the proposed Crop Protection
Program will substantially increase costs to the taxpayer or result in
a much smaller program providing significantly less service to American
growers and ultimately the American public. We urge the Senate
Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies to
continue to dedicate at least $12 million net dollars for Minor Crop
Pest Management (IR-4) in fiscal year 2013 USDA-NIFA Research and
Education Activities. Simply put, the United States specialty crop
growers ask Congress to let the IR-4 Project continue to do the
excellent job it has done for the past 49 years.
The following commodity associations/grower groups support the
above written testimony:
(while looking at this list, consider the breadth of crops, regions and
states represented)
Ag Matters, LLC
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Mushroom Institute
American Nursery & Landscape Association
Ball Horticultural Company
California Apple Commission
California Asparagus Commission
California Blueberry Commission
California Garlic and Onion Research Advisory Board
Cherry Marketing Institute, Inc.
Center for Applied Horticultural Research
Cranberry Institute
Dill Growers of Oregon and Washington
Engage Agro USA
Essex County Fruit Growers
Florida Blueberry Growers Association
Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association
Florida Strawberry Growers Association
Ginseng board of Wisconsin
Great Lakes IPM, Inc.
Hawleys Florist
Hoogasian Flowers, Inc.
Hop Growers of Washington, Inc.
Hop Growers of American, Inc.
Idaho Grain Producers Association
Idaho Hop Commission
Idaho Hop Growers Association
Idaho Sugar Beet Growers Association, Inc.
Iwasaki Bros, Inc.
Kona Perfect Estate Grown Coffee
Lavender Growers of Oregon
Maine Vegetable & Small Fruit Growers Association
Massachusetts Fruit Growers Association
MGB Marketing
Meister Media Worldwide-Publisher of:
American Western Fruit Grower
American Vegetable Grower
Florida Grower
Greenhouse Grower
CropLife
Michigan Asparagus Advisory Board
Michigan Cherry Committee
Michigan Mint Growers Association
Minor Crop Farmers Alliance
Mint Industry Research Council
Montana Mint Committee
Nash Produce
National Asparagus Council
National Barley Growers Association
National Greenhouse Manufacturers Association
National Onion Association
National Potato Council
National Watermelon Growers Association
NC Commercial Blackberry & Raspberry Growers Association
NC Pickles Packers Association
NH Vegetable & Small Fruit Growers Association
New England Vegetable & Berry Growers Association
North American Blueberry Council
North American Greenhouse/Hothouse Vegetable Growers Association
North American Strawberry Growers Association
North California Garlic & Onions Growers
North Carolina Blueberry Council
North Carolina Nursery & Landscape Association
North Carolina Strawberry Association
Oregon Blueberry Commission
Oregon Essential Oil Growers League
Oregon Fine Fescue Commission
Oregon Hop Commission
Oregon Mint Commission
Oregon Ryegrass Commission
Oregon Seed Council
Oregon Tall Fescue Commission
Pacific Northwest Christmas Tree Association
Pacific Northwest Vegetable Association
Pickle Packers International
Rudd Farm
Society of American Florists
Texas Citrus Mutual
Texas Vegetable Association
Tulelake Growers Association Mint Research Advisory Committee
U.S. Apple Association
U.S. Dry Pea & Lentil Council
U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee
Washington Asparagus Commission
Washington Blueberry Commission
Washington Hop Commission
Washington Mint Growers Association
Washington Red Raspberry Commission
Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration
Western Alfalfa Seed Growers Association
Wisconsin Mint Industry
Wisconsin Muck Farmers Association
______
Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(Metropolitan) encourages the Subcommittee's support for fiscal year
2013 Federal funding of about $18 million from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives Program for the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program.
The concentrations of salts in the Colorado River cause
approximately $300 million in quantified damages in the lower Colorado
River Basin States each year and significantly more in unquantified
damages. Salinity concentrations of Colorado River water are lower than
at the beginning of Program activities by over 100 milligrams per liter
(mg/L). Modeling by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation indicates that the
quantifiable damages would rise to more than $500 million by the year
2030 without continuation of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program (Program).
Water imported via the Colorado River Aqueduct has the highest
level of salinity of all of Metropolitan's sources of supply, averaging
around 630 mg/L since 1976, which leads to 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 cost of cooling operations, and the cost of
water softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in
the commercial 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.
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 signed into law the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974 (Act). High total dissolved solids
in the Colorado River as it enters 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 and coordinate the Colorado River Basin States'
efforts on salinity control, the seven Basin States formed the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control 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, and enter the
River through both natural and anthropogenic sources.
The 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 over $40 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.
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 the U.S. Department of Agriculture
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.
Metropolitan urges the Subcommittee to support funding for fiscal
year 2013 of about $18 million from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives Program for the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of County and City
Health Officials
The National Association of County and City Health Officials
(NACCHO) is the voice of the approximately 2,800 local health
departments across the country. City, county, metropolitan, district,
and tribal health departments work every day to ensure the safety of
the water we drink, the food we eat, and the air we breathe. Local
health departments work with State, local, and national partners to
prevent, identify, and respond to outbreaks of foodborne illness.
The Nation's current financial challenges are compounded by those
in State and local governments further diminishing the ability of local
health departments to address community health and safety needs.
Repeated rounds of budget cuts and lay-offs continue to erode local
health department capacity. NACCHO surveys have found that since 2008,
local and State health departments have lost 52,000 jobs due to budget
reductions. In the area of food safety, that means there are fewer
inspectors and trained food safety and food service professionals--from
restaurants and school cafeteria workers to street fair vendors--able
to identify risks and prevent foodborne illness.
Local health departments have wide ranging responsibilities
including measuring population-wide illness and organizing efforts to
prevent disease and prolong quality of life. In the area of food
safety, local health department responsibilities are focused on
preventing foodborne illness and investigating the cause and spread of
illness. Local health departments represent two-thirds of the 3,000
State, local and tribal agencies that have primary responsibility to
regulate the more than 1 million food establishments in the United
States.
Despite the best efforts of public officials, over 48 million cases
of preventable foodborne illness occur every year in this country. Many
of these cases cause pain and suffering, high medical bills,
disability, lost productivity, lower life expectancy and death.
Foodborne illness causes an estimated 128,000 hospital visits and 3,000
deaths annually. Foodborne illness has significant costs associated
with direct medical expenses, lost productivity, and decreased revenue
for food manufacturers and retail establishments. Salmonella, which
causes 1 million cases of foodborne illness, costs $365 million a year
in direct medical expenses. The 2009 salmonella outbreak saw a double
digit decline in the amount of peanut products purchased.
In 2011, the United States experienced the deadliest foodborne
illness outbreak in 90 years, an outbreak of listeria in cantaloupe
that killed 32 people and infected 146 people in 28 States. This
outbreak was quickly contained and the loss of life limited because of
coordinated action between local, State and Federal public health
agencies, including local and State health departments.
Local health departments are on the front lines conducting food
safety inspections and have the expertise to educate food handlers in
their communities. Local health departments inspect restaurants,
grocery stores, daycare facilities, hospitals, schools, and some food
manufacturing plants to ensure safe food handling practices and
sanitary conditions. Local health departments investigate citizen
complaints and when necessary, will take action to ensure that a food
establishment complies with sanitation standards.
In 2010, Congress passed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA),
which recognized the importance of protecting the public from foodborne
illness and the need to strengthen our current system for prevention of
these costly illnesses. In the 21st century, our global food supply
system is more complex than ever before and has an increased risk of
accidental or intentional contamination. In FSMA, the Federal
Government made a commitment to foster coordination and increase
capacity at the local, State and Federal level to prevent and respond
to foodborne illness. The return on Federal investment in food safety
training, surveillance and investigation capacity can be measured in
improved health and lower health care costs and lost productivity. In
fiscal year 2012, Congress made a down payment on the implementation of
FSMA by providing $39 million. NACCHO recommends Congress take further
steps in fiscal year 2013 to fully implement FSMA and fund the Food and
Drug Administration's food safety programs as outlined below.
food and drug administration--center for safety and applied nutrition
NACCHO Request: $1.0 Billion
President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget: $1.0 Billion
Fiscal Year 2012: $883 Million
FDA's Center for Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) supports
partnerships at the local, State and Federal level to protect consumers
from, and quickly respond to and track, foodborne illness outbreaks.
CFSAN also oversees the food safety training program which helps to
maintain uniform standards in food inspection and the retail food
safety initiative which provides best practices for retail food
handlers.
A national food safety training system, including a certification
system, will ensure that officials at all levels of government have
consistent, up-to-date knowledge, as well as the necessary skills, to
do their jobs. Without a robust national training system, there is less
capacity to consistently and continuously improve knowledge and skills
based on the latest science and risk assessments. It is crucial that
regulators and public health partners have the appropriate knowledge
and training to carry out their duties to safeguard the public from
foodborne illness. Food safety training requires continued funding to
increase capacity and adequately train our Nation's food protection
workers.
FDA's dedicated retail food safety initiative supports research and
distribution of technologies that prevent, mitigate, or detect
foodborne illness hazards in the retail environment. FDA resources
allow local health departments to learn about and adopt best practices
for prevention of foodborne illness in the retail setting and to
utilize products developed by FDA to educate the public and food
service workers in their communities.
As you draft the fiscal year 2013 Agriculture-Rural Development--
FDA Appropriations bill, we urge consideration of these recommendations
for FDA programs that are critical to ensuring the safety of our
Nation's food supply and protecting our Nation's people.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials
Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Blunt, I am David Terry, Executive
Director of the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO)
(dterry@naseo.org), and I am testifying in support of funding for the
energy title of the farm bill. Specifically, we support funding of at
least $39 million in discretionary funds for the Rural Energy for
America (REAP) program (Section 9007 of the farm bill), in addition to
any mandatory funding. The REAP program was created in the 2002 farm
bill and it has been a huge success. Over 9,600 energy efficiency and
renewable energy projects have been implemented in every State since
2003. With a required $3 match of non-Federal funds for every Federal
dollar invested in REAP, over $1.6 billion in matching funds have been
provided. This program has specifically benefitted farmers, ranchers
and rural small businesses. NASEO members work directly with eligible
entities, as well as State agricultural agencies and rural interests to
promote this successful program. Rising oil and distillate prices have
made this program even more important.
NASEO represents the energy offices in the States, territories and
the District of Columbia. The REAP program, and the other critical
programs in the energy title of the farm bill, helps create jobs,
increases agricultural productivity, saves energy for farmers, ranchers
and rural small businesses, generates energy, promotes use of
alternative fuels, reduces our dependence on imported petroleum and
saves money in rural America. The cost is very low and the payback is
very high. REAP is about rural economic development.
We urge your support for the REAP program.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Commodity Supplemental Food Program
Association
Mister 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 2013 at $191,935,000; $186,935,000 as
requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, an additional $5
million to begin CSFP operations in six States (Connecticut, Hawaii,
Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island) with USDA-approved
plans. Additionally, the subcommittee should note that current States
requested approximately 116,350 additional slots to meet the rising
demand for nutritional assistance among our vulnerable senior
population.
CSFP is a unique program because it brings together Federal and
State agencies, along with public and private entities. In fiscal year
2011, the CSFP provided services through 150 nonprofit community and
faith-based organizations at 1,800 sites located in 39 States, the
District of Columbia, and two Indian Tribal Organizations (Red Lake,
Minnesota and Oglala Sioux, South Dakota).
In fiscal year 2011, 97 percent of all CSFP recipients were low-
income seniors. Our association has proposed as part of the next farm
bill fully converting the program into a seniors-only program, allowing
sufficient time for those mothers and children to transition off CSFP.
USDA purchases specific nutrient-rich foods at wholesale prices,
including canned fruits and vegetables, juices, meats, fish, peanut
butter, cereals, grain products, cheese and dairy products from
American farmers. State agencies provide oversight, contract with
community and faith-based organizations to warehouse and distribute
food, certify eligibility and educate participants. Local organizations
build broad collaboration among nonprofits, health units, and area
agencies for effective access to these supplemental foods as well as
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.
CSFP continues to be a testimony to the power of community
partnerships between faith-based organizations, farmers, private
industry and Government agencies. The CSFP offers a unique combination
of advantages that are unparalleled by any other food assistance
program:
--The CSFP specifically targets one our Nation's most nutritionally
vulnerable populations: low-income seniors (but association is
suggesting that this becomes senior-only project, so don't
mention children?).
--The CSFP provides a monthly selection of food packages tailored to
the specific nutritional needs of seniors. The nutritional
content of the food provided has improved with the introduction
of low-fat cheese, whole grain products, canned fruits packed
in fruit juice or extra light syrup, and low-salt canned
vegetables.
--The CSFP purchases foods at wholesale prices, directly supporting
American farmers. The average cost of a CSCP food package is
estimated at $19.85 while the retail value is $50.
--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.
In the most 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 that it is a cost-effective way of
providing nutritious supplemental foods. While USDA's budget request
will provide adequate resources for our monthly caseload of 599,380
seniors, mothers, and children--a reduction from the 604,931 packages
USDA was able to support in fiscal year 2011--we urge the Subcommittee
to strongly consider our request for increased funding to allow six
additional States to begin providing nutritional assistance to their
vulnerable seniors.
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''.
According to the 1997 report by the National Policy and Resource
Center on Nutrition and Aging at Florida International University,
Miami--Elder Insecurities: Poverty, Hunger, and Malnutrition,
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.
CSFP recipients believe this is a very significant and vital
program; our belief is supported by agency and recipient testimonials.
An Arkansas recipient tells us that they would not be able to eat the
balanced meals that CSFP provides each month. Arkansas program
operators talk about the importance of interaction between seniors and
program staff, saying this interaction is very important for the well-
being of recipients, and recipients are able to live more stable, self-
sufficient lives as a result. Colorado participants say that they would
not be able to have juice and cereal without CSFP, and many appreciate
the program because they are homebound, and that there are 100 clients
on the waiting list in El Paso County. Seniors in St. Louis, Missouri,
say that CSFP foods help them get through to their next checks.
Participants in Nebraska say that they don't know what they would do
without this food, calling the program a ``lifesaver''. New Hampshire
participants tell us that they use CSFP as a primary source of
nutrition each month and would see a dramatic loss in food availability
without the program. One Wisconsin recipient said that they would
starve without the program, while others said that CSFP on their
limited income meant that they could pay their telephone and electric
bills.
These anecdotes represent just a small portion of those affected,
but it highlights the deep and rising need we are seeing in communities
across the country. Whether urban, suburban, or rural--we have seen
dramatic rises in the demand from the community--and have become more
limited in available resources. With an ever-growing senior population
living on fixed incomes, there has never been a more pressing time to
fund this vital program.
The CSFP is supported by 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.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Organic Coalition
Chairman Kohl, Ranking Member Blunt, 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 2013 funding requests for USDA programs of importance to organic
agriculture.
The NOC is a national alliance of organizations working to provide
a voice for farmers, 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, Organic Seed Alliance, Rural
Advancement Foundation International-USA, and the Union of Concerned
Scientists.
USDA/AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (AMS)
National Organic Program
Request: 9.896 Million
Sales of organic food and beverages have experienced a rapid growth
over the last decade, averaging nearly 20 percent per year. Despite the
recession, organic sales grew at a rate of 5 percent in 2009 and 8
percent in 2010. In 2011, the organic sector experienced a 9.5 percent
growth rate. The National Organic Program (NOP) is the agency charged
with regulating and enforcing the USDA organic label. For years, the
rapid 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 responded with an
increase in funding in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to meet these needs.
In the final fiscal year 2011 Continuing Resolution cuts were made to
AMS overall, and funding levels for individual AMS programs were left
to the discretion of the agency. The resulting NOP funding level for
fiscal year 2011 is $6.919 million.
We are requesting for $9.896 million for the NOP, which is the same
level requested by the Administration's fiscal year 2012 budget,
representing an increase of $2.98 million over current levels. The
Administration's fiscal year 2013 level-funding request for NOP does
not adequately address the needs of this rapidly growing sector.
Increased funding is needed to accelerate the review and amendment of
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; and improve
timeliness and effectiveness of enforcement actions to protect organic
integrity.
USDA (AMS, ERS, NASS)
Organic Data Initiative
Request: $300,000 for AMS Price Report; Report Language for
NASS Organic Production Survey, and ERS Organic
Data Analysis
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 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.
In 2008, NASS conducted the first-ever comprehensive Organic
Production Survey as a follow-on survey to the 2007 Census of
Agriculture. Published in February 2010, the survey has provided
information vital to the organic sector's growth and to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. The Organic Production Survey should be
conducted on a regular basis to properly assess the characteristics,
trends, and changes in the sector.
The Administration's fiscal year 2013 budget proposes to address
organic data collection needs within the overall budget request for the
data collection agencies. However, we are requesting that report
language be included in the fiscal year 2013 report to clearly specify
the organic data collection efforts within AMS, ERS and NASS.
Specifically, we are requesting report language identifying $300,000
for AMS organic price reporting, level with fiscal year 2012 funding.
In addition, we are requesting report language urging NASS to undertake
the necessary planning to conduct an Organic Production Survey on an
on-going 5-year cycle, as a follow-on survey to the Census of
Agriculture, starting in 2013; and for ERS to continue its organic data
analysis efforts.
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.
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, received an increase to $5 million in fiscal years
2010, and $4 million in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. The
Administration's fiscal year 2013 budget requested level funding. We
are requesting $5 million to restore the program to its fiscal year
2010 level.
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 (now AFRI).
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.
Despite the many years of Senate report language and the 2008 Farm
Bill language on this matter, research proposals for classical breeding
that have sought AFRI funding in recent years have been consistently
denied. Of the 127 AFRI-funded projects in 2009, 2010, and 2011 related
to plant breeding and genomics, there was only one project that could
truly be classified as classical breeding, which was a 2010 grant to
Kansas State University for $210,000. Of the 59 AFRI-funded projects in
animal breeding, fertility and genomics, there appear to be no
classical animal breeding projects funded at all.
It is becoming clear that unless a separate AFRI subgrant category
dedicated to classical plant and animal breeding and the development of
public cultivars is created, the 2008 Farm Bill classical breeding
requirement and concerns stated in years of Senate report language will
not be adequately addressed.
We are requesting strong report language from the Subcommittee to
reiterate that the funding for classical plant and animal breeding and
pubic cultivar development should be a priority area within the AFRI
program, and urging that a separate and distinct RFA be created within
AFRI to address this critical need. Specifically, we are requesting the
following report language in the AFRI section of the Committee report:
The Committee believes that funding for classical plant and animal
breeding that results in finished public cultivars and breeds should be
a priority area within the AFRI program, and urges the agency to create
a separate and distinct RFA within AFRI to address this critical need.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)
Request: $30 Million ($18 Million for Research and
Education Grants, $7 Million for the Federal-State
Matching Grant Program, and $5 Million for
Extension and Outreach 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 $22.7 million for SARE program
for fiscal year 2013, including $3.5 million to start the Federal-State
Matching Grant program. We are requesting $18 million for research and
education grants, $7 million for Federal-State Matching Grant program,
and $5 million for extension and outreach.
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 website, 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 website-based information
services and through the growing requests for workshops.
Funding for ATTRA was completely eliminated in the fiscal year 2011
Continuing Resolution, greatly jeopardizing information transfer to
farmers seeking the most up-to-date scientific and practical
information about sustainable farmers systems, but was funded at $2.25
million in fiscal year 2012. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget
requests level funding ($2.25 million) for ATTRA. We are requesting $3
million for fiscal year 2013, to help meet the growing demand from
farmers for up-to-date, science-based information.
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
a critical point. While USDA's statutory obligation to address this
problem through the AFRI competitive grant program remains strong, 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.
We are requesting $9 million for ARS classical plant and animal
breeding efforts, to be utilized in a manner similar to that described
in the Administration's fiscal year 2011 budget request (pages 16-19
and 16-29 of USDA's fiscal year 2011 Budget Justification document),
which called for 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. With the
change in leadership at USDA, the Administration's fiscal year 2012 and
2013 requests for ARS have failed to reiterate this request. However,
we believe the fiscal year 2011 ARS request for this research was well
stated, and urge the Subcommittee to provide funding for this critical
ARS activity.
Thank you for your consideration of these fiscal year 2013 funding
priorities. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee throughout
this year's appropriations process.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Rural Housing Coalition
On behalf of the National Rural Housing Coalition (NRHC), I would
like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony
on fiscal year 2013 appropriations for Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Rural Housing Programs. I strongly urge this Subcommittee to fund USDA
Rural Housing programs at the higher of fiscal year 2012 levels or the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget request: (1) $900 million for
Section 502 Family Direct Homeownership Loans; (2) $28 million for
Section 504 Very-Low Income Rural Housing Repair Loans; (3) $29.5
million for Section 504 Very-Low Income Rural Housing Repair Grants;
(4) $26 million for Section 514 Farm Labor Housing Program Loans; (5)
$9 million for Section 516 Farm Labor Housing Program Grants; (6) $64.5
million for Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Program; (7) $907 million
for Section 521 Multi-Family Rental Housing Rental Assistance Program;
(8) $30 million for Section 523 Self-Help Housing Program: (9) $3.6
million for Section 533 Housing Preservation Grants Program; (10) $150
million for Section 538 Guaranteed Multi-Family Housing Loans; (11)
$46.9 million for the Multi-Family Housing Preservation and
Revitalization Program; and (12) $13 million for the Rural Community
Development Initiative.
NRHC is a national membership organization consisting of housing
developers, nonprofit housing organizations, State and local officials,
and housing advocates. Since 1969, NRHC has promoted and defended the
principle that rural people have the right, regardless of income, to a
decent, affordable place to live, clean water, and basic community
services.
Housing Needs in Rural America
Even in strong economic times, the needs of rural America are too
often overlooked. And, although our most recent economic crisis pushed
these many of these communities to the brink, their needs continue to
be neglected by the mainstream media, traditional sources of capital,
and Federal policymakers. For example, although nearly 20 percent of
the population lives in rural communities, other Federal agencies
consistently overlook their unique housing needs; less than 7 percent
of the Federal Housing Administration assistance, 10 percent of
Veterans Affairs programs, and 12 percent of Section 8 Rental
Assistance serves rural areas.
Rural communities have severe housing and development needs. With
some of the Nation's lowest incomes, rural communities are four times
more likely to have at least 20 percent of their population living in
poverty. About 98 percent of ``consistently poor counties'' are rural,
as are nearly all communities with inadequate drinking water. As a
result, rural families are far more likely to live in substandard
housing or be overburden by rent. Housing in rural America is simply
too expensive relative to household income, overcrowded, or lacks
certain basic facilities.
Despite the overwhelming need for safe, clean, and affordable
housing in rural America, Congress has consistently cut funding for the
very programs specifically tailored to meet this need. And now,
President Obama has proposed significant cuts to the Section 502 Direct
Loan and Self-Help Housing programs, and the elimination of the Section
515 Rural Rental Housing program. Because these programs overwhelmingly
serve our most vulnerable residents--lower income families, the
elderly, and persons with disabilities, these cuts will only make it
harder for low-income, rural Americans to access safe, decent,
affordable housing. As such, I would like to focus my testimony on how
these programs are critical to meeting the needs of rural families.
Section 502 Single-Family Direct Homeownership Loans
Over 60 years, the Section 502 Direct Loan Program has helped more
than 2.1 million families realize the American Dream and build their
wealth by more than $40 billion. Despite the program's success, demand
for Section 502 loans continues to outpace supply. Over 25,000 loan
applications--amounting to more than $2 billion--are currently on
Section 502 waiting lists.
No other Federal home ownership program can match the profile of
the families served under Section 502. It is the only Federal
homeownership program that is exclusively targeted to very low- and
low-income rural families. By law, at least 40 percent of Section 502
funds must be used to assist families earning less than 50 percent of
the area median income. Two-thirds borrowers have incomes less than 60
percent of AMI, with an average income less than $27,000.
Despite serving families with limited economic means, Section 502
is the single, most cost-effective Federal housing program, period. On
average, each Section 502 loan costs less than $7,200 over its entire
lifetime. Compare that to the average Section 8 Housing Assistance
payment, which costs taxpayers nearly $7,000 each year.
Although some have suggested that the Section 502 Guarantee Program
can serve as an adequate alternative, this is simply untrue. Unlike the
Direct Loan program, the Guarantee program overwhelmingly serves
higher-income individuals--with an average income of nearly twice that
of Direct Loan families--leaving rural communities with the greatest
credit needs without any alternative. Even the USDA has held that the
guarantee program is the worst-targeted of all its rural development
guarantees, with loans going to larger, wealthier communities.
Likewise, the guarantee program does not provide interest rate
subsidies. This defect will become even more harmful when interest
rates return to normal levels.
Section 523 Mutual Self-Help Housing
The Self-Help Housing program adapts the rural tradition of barn-
raising to provide housing opportunities for families with limited
economic means. Through this program, more than 3,500 families have
been able to realize the American Dream in the past 3 years. This
construction has led to over 11,000 jobs, more than $738 million in
local income and $77 million in taxes and revenue in rural communities
across the country. If the President's budget is approved by Congress,
Self-Help Housing will be cut to its lowest funding in more than 30
years, decimating the network of over 100 Self-Help organizations over
37 States and deserting 50,000 families currently on their waiting
lists.
Self-Help Housing is the only Federal program that combines ``sweat
equity'' homeownership opportunities with technical assistance and
affordable loans for America's rural families. Self-Help Housing
families work nights and weekends to provide 65 percent of the
construction labor on their own and each other's homes. In doing so,
families earn equity, decrease construction costs, and make lasting
investments in their community. The hallmark of the Self-Help Housing
program is its emphasis on hard work, self-reliance, and community.
This program is exclusively targeted to very low- and low-income
families who are otherwise unable to access decent housing. Over half
of the participants are minorities. Although these families have lower
incomes, default rates are significantly lower than other borrowers.
Section 515 Rural Rental Housing
Section 515 is the principal source of financing for rental housing
in rural communities. Today, more than 500,000 families live in housing
financed by Section 515. If approved by Congress, the President's
budget will end a 40-year effort to improve the quality of rural
housing, leaving seniors, low-income families, and those with
disabilities even more vulnerable.
Rental units developed with Section 515 loans are exclusively
targeted to very low-, low-, and moderate-income families, the elderly,
and persons with disabilities. A vast majority--94 percent--of Section
515 tenants have very-low incomes. The average yearly income is only
$11,000. Some 57 percent these households are elderly or disabled, 26
percent are headed by persons of color, and 73 percent are headed by
women.
Demand for affordable, rural rental housing continues to outpace
supply. More than 7.8 million rural residents--including 19 percent of
all rural children--live in poverty. Almost 1 million rural renters
live in substandard housing. Yet, despite its success and increased
demand, Section 515 funding has been cut drastically, stalling the
production of new units and the preservation of existing ones.
Conclusion
Providing adequate funding for USDA Rural Housing programs is
essential to efforts to improve the quality of life and economic
opportunity in rural America. These programs are all part of the
toolbox that USDA employs address the shortfall in decent, clean, and
affordable housing in these communities. For a very small fraction of
the USDA's budget, Congress can provide affordable rental and
homeownership opportunities to thousands of rural families with limited
means and boost flagging economies in small communities.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit this statement.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
Thank you for the opportunity to present our fiscal year 2013
funding requests. NSAC is a national alliance of over 90 organizations
that advocates for policies that support the economic, social, and
environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and
rural communities. Our USDA requests are as follows, in the order they
appear in the appropriations bill.
Departmental Administration
Office of Advocacy and Outreach.--The Office of Advocacy and
Outreach coordinates policy and outreach in two vital areas--small and
beginning farmers, and socially disadvantaged or minority farmers. It
administers the Outreach and Technical Assistance for Socially
Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers program and the Farm Labor Grants
program. We support USDA's request for $1.4 million for the OA&O.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE).--We
urge you to fund this innovative competitive grants program at $30
million, divided among research and education grants ($18 million),
extension and professional development grants ($5 million), and
Federal-State matching grants ($7 million). SARE has helped turn
farmer-driven research, education, and extension initiatives into
profitable and environmentally sound practices for over 20 years.
Organic Transitions Integrated Research Program.--We request $5
million to maintain the funding level established in fiscal year 2010
and in USDA's fiscal year 2012 request. Maintaining the fiscal year
2010 funding level will allow cooperation with natural resource
programs to provide environmental solutions with strong farmer delivery
mechanisms built in. Without full funding, organic research will fall
further behind in its fair share of the research budget, a share that
continues to lag behind trends in agriculture.
National Food Safety Training, Education, Extension, Outreach, and
Technical Assistance.--We request $10 million to help small and mid
size farms and small processing facilities comply with new food safety
regulations. This food safety training for farmers and small
processors, authorized in the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, is
one of the best, quickest, and least costly ways to improve food safety
outcomes without resorting to excessive regulation.
Agricultural Marketing Service
Federal-State Market Improvement Program (FSMIP).--The FSMIP
provides matching funds to State departments of agriculture to help
grantees increase marketing efficiency and innovation, reduce costs,
stabilize food prices, and support local and regional food marketing
opportunities. NSAC supports the USDA request of $1.3 million.
Organic Market Reporting.--NSAC requests level funding at $0.3
million for AMS for this price data collection and reporting
initiative. As the organic industry surpasses $30 billion a year in
sales, this multi-agency initiative is vital to maintaining markets,
creating risk management tools, and negotiating equivalency agreements
with foreign governments. We also support baseline funding for NASS and
ERS to continue coordinated data collection and reporting on organic
production, marketing, and pricing, including NASS funding for the
Organic Production Survey.
Farm Service Agency
Direct Farm Ownership and Operating Loans--(Program Levels).--
Direct loans provide a crucial source of capital for beginning farmers
and others not well served by commercial credit. The final fiscal year
2011 continuing resolution cut direct farm ownership loan funding by
$175 million and the fiscal year 2012 bill retained this lower level.
Nearly $130 million worth of qualified applications were turned away in
fiscal year 2011. In light of the increasing age of farmers and the
challenges faced by beginning farmers, it is critical that we fund
these direct loan programs in the most effective way possible. We ask
that Congress appropriate sufficient funds to provide for program
levels of $600 million for Direct Farm Ownership loans and $1,050
million for Direct Operating Loans.
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Account (IDA)
Program.--We urge you to provide $5 million for this program, as
authorized in the 2008 farm bill. This competitive grants program
enables low-income, limited resource beginning farmers and ranchers to
open an IDA (matched savings account) to save for asset-building
purchases, including farmland, equipment, breeding stock, or similar
expenditures. A 50 percent local match is required.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA).--CTA, a subset of
Conservation Operations, supports farmers enrolling in financial
assistance programs and helps farmers with conservation planning and
implementation. CTA also funds assessment of conservation practices and
systems that underpin the conservation programs, as well as NRCS
collection, analysis, and dissemination of information on the condition
of the Nation's natural resources. NSAC urges you to provide $740
million for CTA in order to adequately support and maximize the
effectiveness of conservation financial assistance. We also support the
addition of report language encouraging a modest net 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).--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. VAPG
grants encourage the kind of entrepreneurship in agriculture that
enables farms and communities to survive economically. Moreover,
growing interest in local and regional foods is generating greater
demand for mid-tier value chains and enterprises that aggregate local
production, exactly the kind of rural development strategy VAPG is
designed to support. We request VAPG funding of $30 million.
Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP).--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 areas. RMAP creates jobs and local markets and
alleviates poverty. This program was stripped of its mandatory farm
bill funding (only $3 million) in fiscal year 2012. NSAC requests $5.7
million in discretionary funding in fiscal year 2013 and opposes any
limitation to renewed or extended direct Farm Bill spending for RMAP.
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA).--The ATTRA
program, also known as the National Sustainable Agriculture Information
Service, provides critical support to farmers and Extension agents
throughout the country. The national program was reauthorized by the
2008 farm bill. We urge $3 million for fiscal year 2013.
General Provisions
Repeated annual cuts the Conservation Stewardship Program,
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and other mandatory
conservation programs have created enormous backlogs among highly
qualified producers and made it more difficult for farmers to maintain
healthy, productive soil and to protect water and other natural
resources. These programs provide critical public benefits such as
clean water, erosion reduction, and carbon sequestration and act as a
key piece of the farmer safety net. We strongly oppose the proposed
cuts to these critical conservation programs. We also oppose changes in
mandatory program spending to any existing, renewed, or extended farm
bill direct spending 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, National Organic Certification Cost-Share
Program, Community Food Grants, and Rural Energy for America Program.
Finally, we oppose any limitation to full implementation of the
Packers & Stockyards rule on fair competition that Congress directed
USDA to promulgate in the 2008 farm bill.
SUMMARY OF NSAC'S FISCAL YEAR 2013 REQUESTS
[Dollars in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2012 USDA 2013 request NSAC 2013 request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Departmental Administration: $1.2.................................. $1.4.................................. $1.4
Office of Advocacy and Outreach.
National Institute of Food and
Agriculture:
Sustainable Agriculture $14.5 (research & education) + $4.7 $14.5 + $4.7 + $3.5 (Federal-State $18.0 + $5.0 + $7.0 = $30 total
Research and Education (extension) = $19.2. matching grants) = $22.7.
Program.
Organic Transitions Program.. $4.0.................................. $4.0.................................. $5.0
National Food Safety ...................................... ...................................... $10.0
Training, Education,
Extension, Outreach and
Technical Assistance
(Authorized by Congress in
the Food Safety
Modernization Act of 2010).
Agricultural Marketing Service:
Federal-State Market $1.2.................................. $1.3.................................. $1.3
Improvement Program.
Organic Market Reporting..... $0.3.................................. Funding for this activity included in $0.3
We also support continued top line request.
baseline funding for NASS
and ERS to continue
coordinated data
collection and reporting
on organic production,
marketing, and pricing,
including NASS funding
for the Organic
Production Survey.
Farm Service Agency:
Direct Farm Ownership and $475.0 + $1,050.0..................... $475.0 + $1,050.0..................... $600.0 + $1,050.0
Operating Loans--(Program
Levels).
Beginning Farmer Individual ...................................... $2.5.................................. $5.0
Development Account (IDA)
Pilot Program.
Natural Resources Conservation $729.5................................ $728.8................................ $740.0
Service: Conservation Technical
Assistance.
Rural Business and Cooperative
Service:
Value-Added Producer Grants.. $14.0................................. $15.0................................. $30.0
Rural Microentrepreneur $0.0 ($3.0 CHIMP + $0 discretion- $3.7 (discretionary).................. $5.7 ($5.7 discretionary + no CHIMP/
Assistance Program. ary). limitation on 2012 farm bill direct
funding)
National Sustainable $2.25................................. $2.25................................. $3.0
Agriculture Information
Service (ATTRA).
General Provisions: Conservation $768.5 ($75.5 CHIMP).................. $972.0 ($68.0 approx. CHIMP; permanent No CHIMP/limitation on farm bill
Stewardship Program. cut of 759,632 acres). direct spending
We also oppose changes in
mandatory program spending
(CHIMPS) for: other directly
funded farm bill conservation
programs; and any existing,
renewed or extended mandatory
farm bill spending 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, National
Organic Certification Cost-
Share Program, Community Food
Grants, and Rural Energy for
America Program.
We oppose any limitation to
full implementation of the
Packers & Stockyards rule on
fair competition that
Congress directed USDA to
promulgate in the 2008 farm
bill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Northwest Regional Housing Authority
USDA Rural Development funding for these programs needs to be
funded to at least the level of 2012. Section 502 Direct Program should
be at $900 million or more and the Section 523 funding needs to be
maintained at $30 million. The 502 Direct Program is the only Federal
homeownership program that is exclusively targeted to very low- and
low-income rural families. In the past 60 years this program has helped
more than 2.1 million families build wealth and achieve the American
dream of homeownership. By law 40 percent of 502 Direct Loan funds must
be used to assist families earning less than 50 percent of area median
income. 25,000 loan applications are currently on a waiting list for
Section 502 loan funding.
The Section 523 program helps organizations to provide training,
supervision and technical assistance to families. Families work nights
and weekends providing construction labor on their own and each other's
homes to decrease construction costs increase equity and build wealth.
Every 100 homes built on this program results in 324 jobs, $21.1
million in local income and $2.2 million in tax revenue. Even though
Self-Help families have lower income, default rates are significantly
lower than other borrowers. More than 50,000 families are currently on
Self-Help Housing waiting lists. Each family that builds a Self-Help
home makes many sacrifices. Throughout the process and after all the
hard work they will say, yes, it was worth it. It does not make sense
to let these programs deteriorate to the point of extinction.
Thank you for the opportunity to address these issues today.
______
Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) strongly supports the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) and is deeply concerned about reductions to programs
important to our members for fiscal year 2013. OWRC is requesting that
funding for several key NRCS programs be increased for fiscal year 2013
and that the ``Bridging the Headgates'' MOU between NRCS and the Bureau
of Reclamation be reactivated and expanded to include other Federal
agencies.
OWRC was established in 1912 as a trade association to support
district member needs to protect water rights and encourage
conservation and water management statewide. OWRC represents non-
potable agricultural water suppliers in Oregon, primarily irrigation
districts, as well as other special districts and local governments
that deliver irrigation water. The association represents the entities
that operate water management systems, including water supply
reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and hydropower production.
Need
OWRC and its members believe conservation of natural resources
through collaborative partnerships is crucial to ensuring the viability
of irrigation districts and similar organizations that deliver
irrigation water for the Nation's agriculture. Federal support of water
conservation activities funded through NRCS programs including the
Agricultural Watershed Enhancement Program (AWEP) and the Cooperative
Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI) are essential to the
conservation of our natural resources and critical to protecting our
food, energy and water supply. Irrigation districts and other
agricultural water users in Oregon have used these programs to develop
collaborative projects with Federal, State, and other local entities--
proving that on-the-ground conservation can be best achieved by
leveraging partnerships, pooling available resources, and focusing on
each partner's strengths.
We are deeply disappointed that the NRCS budget for fiscal year
2013 is a 13 percent decrease from fiscal year 2012 estimated budget
levels. While we recognize that the administration has increased
funding for some of the NRCS programs, the need for additional
financial assistance with conservation projects still far outweighs the
budget. NRCS programs are essential to irrigation districts in
developing and implementing conservation projects that benefit not only
the individual farmers they serve but also the entire watershed and
community as a whole. Furthermore, conservation projects also benefit
the economy through job creation and ensuring the future viability of
American agriculture. OWRC is requesting that funding for AWEP be
increased to at least $75 million, which is comparable to the enacted
fiscal year 2011 levels but is still far less than what could be used
in Oregon and nationally.
AWEP and CCPI Needs
AWEP and CCPI help fill a funding void for multi-partner
conservation projects. Often large conservation projects do not include
individual on-farm projects which limits the effectiveness of the
project. AWEP and CCPI allow farmers to pool together and leverage the
dollars invested in the off-farm project with the addition of EQIP on-
farm projects. Because of the large number of successful project
applications for AWEP, USDA will have to obligate a large amount of the
annual $60 million appropriation to existing multiyear projects. It is
important that the funding for these projects not be interrupted so
that they may be completed. However, it is equally important to have
funding available for new eligible AWEP and CCPI projects that
simultaneously benefit the environment and economy.
Bridging the Headgates MOU and Watershed Planning Needs
The need for continued coordination among Federal agencies,
including NRCS, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NOAA
Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE), is a significant issue. With the loss of watershed planning
funding, reactivating and expanding this program to other Federal
agencies would be a very cost-effective alternative.
In the past, Oregon NRCS used a watershed resources planning team
to conduct Rapid Watershed Assessments throughout Oregon. This planning
program helped prioritize projects to bring about the most benefit in
critical watersheds. The use of the Rapid Watershed Assessment has been
instrumental in getting on-the-ground conservation projects completed
in a timely manner. A number of NRCS funded district projects have been
implemented using the data from this program.
Following in the vein of the Rapid Watershed Assessments, Oregon
has adopted a Strategic Approach to Conservation. The goal is to invest
technical and financial resources to strategically solve natural
resource problems and be more effective, efficient, and accountable for
staffing, funding and partnerships. The process builds from the ongoing
planning process utilizing existing conservation plans, watershed
assessments; conservation agencies, organizations, groups and producers
to develop consensus on overarching 5-10 years local goals and
priorities for conservation; including vision, resource inventories,
resource problems, desired outcomes, other Government/NGO partners
interests and contributions. This is a method to prioritize and develop
detailed strategies to address natural resource problems. This strategy
is intended to accelerate the conservation implementation and leverage
technical and financial resources required to solve the problem. These
types of program activities are effective tools that need a consistent
funding source.
Program Benefits
OWRC strongly supports AWEP and CCPI, which are both critical tools
for districts and other agricultural water suppliers in developing and
implementing water and energy conservation projects in Oregon. AWEP has
been highly successful in developing cooperative approaches on a basin-
wide scale. This program allows districts and other agricultural water
suppliers to partner with farmers to address regional water quantity
and quality issues in local watersheds.
The CCPI allows partnerships to be formed with Federal, State and
local interests to address Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Clean Water
Act (CWA) issues in watershed basins and sub basins. We believe that
water supply issues in Oregon and elsewhere in the Nation can be
resolved best locally in cooperative partnership efforts that promote
conservation with a more aggressive Federal funding partnership as
defined in AWEP and CCPI. In the spirit of streamlining farm bill
programs, OWRC would support combining AWEP and CCPI into one program,
but only if the current authorized funding is maintained or increased
for the two programs combined. OWRC strongly supports the continuation
and increased funding of the AWEP and CCPI programs for fiscal year
2013.
Examples of Successful AWEP Projects in Oregon
Oregon has had several successful AWEP applicants over the past
several years, three from our member districts (described below). The
full list of Oregon projects can be found on the Oregon NRCS website
at: http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/awep/index.html.
--The Whychus Creek/Three Sisters Irrigation District Collaborative
Restoration Project focuses on irrigation water efficiency with
irrigation improvements in the Upper Division of the Three
Sisters Irrigation District, which is the project partner. The
effort will improve stream flows and water quality for native
fish while providing farmers a reliable supply of water. Fiscal
year 2012 funding: $251,300 (AWEP).
--The Talent Irrigation District Project works with agricultural
producers to install conservation practices that will properly
utilize limited surface water resources, improve water quality
on flood irrigated land by converting to more efficient
irrigation systems, and apply irrigation water management to
eliminate irrigation runoff. Fiscal year 2012 funding: $4,470
(AWEP).
--The Willow Creek Project helps landowners in the Lower Willow Creek
Watershed portion of Malheur County convert to water-saving
irrigation systems, reduce irrigation runoff, and improve water
quality in Willow Creek and Malheur River. The project partner
is the Vale Oregon Irrigation District. Fiscal year 2012
funding: $251,300 (AWEP).
In 2012 Oregon requested approximately $3.1 million for project
funding but only received $2.4 million for existing AWEP approved
projects. Oregon also requested approximately $3.2 million of CCPI
funds and received $3 million. Each year local interest has increased
to compete for AWEP and CCPI funding and additional innovative projects
like the ones above could be developed and implemented in Oregon if
more funding is made available.
The projects above are just a few examples of how NRCS programs
have been successfully used in Oregon to develop and implement
collaborative multi-benefit conservation projects. In the future, OWRC
would also like to see additional funding targeted for projects that
conserve both water and energy--which are two key and complimentary
resource areas for the agricultural community. In Oregon, NRCS is
helping develop the Save Water, Save Energy Initiative, a multi-agency
cooperative effort to develop a clearinghouse of information on
financial incentives and technical expertise to assist districts and
their water users in implementing conservation measures. Supporting
projects like the pilot project being implemented in the Deschutes
Basin will provide the groundwork for future Save Water, Save Energy
projects and help maximize Federal investment in conservation efforts.
Conclusion
Our member districts, the farms and other water users they serve,
and the communities in which they are located benefit greatly from the
NRCS programs described in our testimony. Oregon's agricultural
community is actively committed to water conservation programs, but
those programs require Federal participation if the agricultural
community is to be able to continue its efforts to address Oregon's
water supply needs through water conservation. These valuable programs
are essential tools in not only conserving natural resources but also
in leveraging Federal, State, local partnerships and resources to
implement important projects that would otherwise be unrealized.
Increasing the budget for NRCS programs is a strategic investment that
will pay both environmental and economic dividends to Oregonians and
America as a whole.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the record
on the proposed fiscal year 2013 budget for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
______
Prepared Statement of the Organic Farming Research Foundation
The Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) is a national,
farmer-led nonprofit organization that fosters the improvement and
widespread adoption of organic farming systems. Organic agriculture is
one of the fastest growing sectors of American agriculture, creating
jobs in rural areas and keeping farmers in business. In 2011, the
organic sector grew by 9.5 percent; the sector experienced double-digit
growth before the economic recession and has maintained positive growth
since. Ensuring the continued growth and job creation ability of the
organic sector requires upholding the integrity of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture organic label and continuing the modest but important
investment in organic agriculture. The following requests are for
national programs authorized by Congress in past farm bills. The
agencies included in the requests are all at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA): National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA),
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), Rural Business--Cooperative
Service (RBCS). The programs are the Organic Transitions Integrated
Research Program (ORG) at $5 million, the Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education Program (SARE) at $30 million, the National
Organic Program (NOP) at $10 million, the Organic Production and Market
Data Initiatives (ODI) at $0.3 million, and the Appropriate Technology
Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) at $3 million. We present sensible,
modest requests that support a basic investment in a fast-growing, job-
creating sector of agriculture. Additionally, we urge no cuts to
mandatory program funding. Please read below for further details.
Organic Transitions Integrated Research Program (ORG)--USDA-NIFA
2008 Farm Bill Authorized: Sums as Appropriate; Fiscal Year
2013 OFRF Request: $5 Million
An investment in research underpins growth in any sector. One of
the barriers to continued growth in organic is lack of research and
information that growers need to improve and increase production. ORG
is a national, competitive research, education, and extension program
that provides research to the fast-growing organic sector. Funding ORG
at $5 million would help bridge the gap between sector growth and
research investment.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE)--USDA-
NIFA
2008 Farm Bill Authorized: $60 Million; Fiscal Year 2013
OFRF Request: $30 Million
SARE is a farmer-driven and regionally led competitive research and
extension grants program that provides farmers with business,
marketing, and production information to be successful. SARE
complements the activities of dedicated organic research programs by
funding on-farm research. Funding SARE at $30 million would allow for
the launch of a Federal-State Matching Grants program to build capacity
at the State level for research and extension to address regional and
local needs. We support splitting the funding between the Research and
Education section of SARE ($25 million) and the Extension (or
Professional Development Program) section of SARE ($5 million).
National Organic Program (NOP)--USDA-AMS
2008 Farm Bill Authorized: $11 Million; Fiscal Year 2013
OFRF Request: $10 Million
NOP enforces the national organic program standards, accredits
certifiers, develops equivalency agreements, handles complaints--in
essence, NOP ensures the integrity of the organic seal. NOP performs
regulatory oversight of the organic label and ensures that consumers
are getting what they pay for when they choose foods with the organic
label. These are essential functions to the survival and growth of the
organic sector.
Organic Production and Market Data Initiatives (ODI)--USDA-AMS
2008 Farm Bill Authorized: $5 Million; Fiscal Year 2013
OFRF Request: $0.3 Million
Every sector needs reliable, current data and statistics to
function properly and grow. USDA has historically not collected basic
data and statistics on the growing organic sector. In the 2008 farm
bill, Congress directed USDA to collect data for organic through ODI.
As the industry surpasses $32 billion, the information collected
through this multi-agency initiative is vital to maintaining stable
markets, creating proper risk management tools, and negotiating
equivalency agreements with foreign governments. The request of $0.3
million for AMS is specifically to continue the collection of price
data and its dissemination through Market News Reports. We also support
continued baseline funding for NASS and ERS to continue coordinated
data collection and reporting on organic production, marketing, and
pricing, including NASS funding for the Organic Production Survey.
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA)--USDA-RBCS
2008 Farm Bill Authorized: $5 Million; Fiscal Year 2013
OFRF Request: $3 Million
ATTRA serves farmers and ranchers nationwide by providing cutting-
edge production and marketing information through web publications and
a toll-free phone line. Authorized originally in the 1985 farm bill,
ATTRA has provided technical assistance and educational resources to a
broad range of farmers and agricultural professionals for over two
decades. Just last year, ATTRA received over 60,000 technical requests,
had over 5.8 million publication downloads from its website, and
conducted workshops in 45 States that over 177,000 individuals
attended. The program was recently zeroed out because of the mistaken
assumption that the program is an earmark. ATTRA is a national program
that is run according to statute by a national, nonprofit organization
through a cooperative agreement with USDA. The classification of the
program as an earmark is a mistake.
No Cuts to Mandatory Program Spending
OFRF urges the Subcommittee not to cut mandatory program spending.
Over half a billion dollars in cuts have already been made to mandatory
farm bill programs (primarily conservation and energy), and we urge the
Subcommittee not to make anymore. These cuts have negative impacts on
the baseline funding available for the next farm bill and should not
unfairly be targeted to certain sectors of agriculture.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. Organic
agriculture is a growth industry. Making the modest investments in the
key programs described above will help to ensure that organic sector
operations and businesses continue to grow, to hire new employees, and
to meet the strong consumer demand for organic food.
______
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.
Additional Budget Requests for Fiscal Year 2013
Funding needs for four USDA/ARS laboratories are as follows:
REQUESTS FOR PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT--PICKLED VEGETABLES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerging Disease of Crops............................... $500,000
Quality and Utilization of Agricultural Products & Food 500,000
Safety.................................................
Applied Crop Genomics................................... 500,000
Specialty Crops......................................... 550,000
---------------
Total Program Enhancements Requested--Pickled 2,050,000
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, reduce environmental pollution, and reduce
clean water intake while continuing to assure safety and quality of our
products.
Methods for delivering beneficial microorganisms in fermented or
acidified vegetables, and produce reduced sodium, healthier products.
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.
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.
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. This
industry can grow by meeting today's lifestyle changes 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 are in any
``commodity program'' and do not rely on 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 rural America.
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.,
pest resistances and health-enhancing characteristics) 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. Their innovations meet long-term needs
and bring innovations in these crops for the United States and export
markets, for which the United States has successfully competed.
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, tolerance to
environmental stresses, and higher yield have recently been identified
along with molecular tools to expedite delivery of elite cucumber lines
to U.S. growers. A new genetic resistance to nematode attack was found
to almost completely protect the carrot crop from one major nematode.
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. The genetic bases of onion flavor, as well as compounds
that enhance cardiovascular health and have anti-carcinogenic effects
have been determined and are being used to develop onions that are more
appealing and healthier 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 should 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 United States and export markets.
FOOD SCIENCE RESEARCH UNIT, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
The USDA/ARS Food Science Research Unit (FSRU) in Raleigh, North
Carolina is the major public laboratory that this industry looks to for
new scientific information on the safety of our products and
development of new processing technologies related to fermented and
acidified vegetables. The scientists in the FSRU have consistently
provided innovative solutions to processing challenges which have
helped this industry remain competitive in the current global trade
environment. Major accomplishments of the FSRU include: pasteurization
treatments currently used for most acidified vegetables; the
preservation technology used for manufacturing shelf stable sweet
pickles; fermentation technology (purging) used to prevent the
formation of air pockets within fermented pickles. These innovations
have improved processing and product quality and yielded significant
savings industry-wide. Furthermore, the FSRU has determined the
microbial safety parameters now used for acidified vegetable process
filings, as required by the Food and Drug Administration. The picking
industry in the United States relies on the FSRU for the development of
new and improved technologies that will increase the economic value of
processed vegetable products, provide consumers with safe, high
quality, healthful vegetable products, and reduce the environmental
impact of industrial activities. Additional funding is needed to
support important new research initiatives.
First, nearly all retail pickled vegetables are pasteurized for
safety and shelf stability. Current steam and water bath pasteurizers
rely on technology from the 1940s and 1950s. Promising new technologies
include continuous flow microwave technology and ``hot-fill-and-hold''
pasteurization. The objective is to reduce water use and significantly
improve energy efficiency with new, scientifically validated thermal
processing technology.
Second, additional research that offers significant economic and
environmental advantages to the U.S. industry includes the reduction or
replacement of salt in commercial vegetable fermentations. Calcium
substitution of salt in commercial vegetable fermentations has the
potential to eliminate salt disposal problems and create opportunities
to manufacture calcium enriched, reduced sodium, healthier vegetable
products. Reducing environmental impact and production costs for the
manufacture of healthier products is essential to the sustainability of
the U.S. industry.
Third, there is a growing body of research indicating that certain
beneficial microorganisms (probiotics) improve human health by
remaining in the intestinal tract after they are consumed. New
processing technology is needed to develop high value probiotic
vegetable products, opening new markets in the United States and
improving the health benefits derived from consumption of fermented and
acidified vegetables.
SUGAR BEET AND BEAN RESEARCH UNIT, EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN
Quality inspection and assurance of pickling vegetables is critical
to growers and processors and ultimately consumers of pickling
vegetables. While automated systems are currently used in many pickle
processing facilities, they are only for inspecting product surface
quality characteristics. Opportunities exist for developing more
efficient sensors and automated inspection technologies, especially for
internal quality assessment and grading of pickling vegetables and
pickled products. Moreover, labor required for postharvest handling and
processing operations represents a significant portion of the total
production cost. New and/or improved inspection technologies can help
growers and processors assess, inspect and grade pickling vegetables
and pickled products 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, ensure high
quality, consistent final product and end-user satisfaction, and reduce
production cost.
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. Over the years, the Unit has developed a number
of innovative engineering technologies for rapid, nondestructive
measurement and inspection of postharvest quality of tree fruits and
vegetables, including a novel spectral scattering technology for
assessing the texture and flavor of fruits, a portable fruit firmness
tester, and a spectral property measuring instrument for quality
evaluation of fruits and vegetables. Recently, it also developed an
advanced hyperspectral imaging system for automated detection of
internal and external quality of pickling cucumbers and pickles.
Research at East Lansing will continue to provide the pickling
vegetable industry a vital source of innovative inspection and grading
technology to assure high-quality safe products to the marketplace and
achieve labor cost savings. 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
Research at the USDA/ARS U.S. Vegetable Laboratory in Charleston,
South Carolina, addresses national problems confronting the vegetable
industry of the southeastern United States. The mission of the
laboratory is to develop disease and pest resistant vegetables, and
also new, reliable, environmentally sound disease and pest management
practices that do not rely on conventional pesticides. The laboratory's
program currently addresses 14 crops, including those in the cabbage,
cucumber, and pepper families, all of major importance to the pickling
industry. Research at this ARS facility is recognized world-wide, and
its accomplishments include over 150 new vegetable varieties and many
improved management practices.
Expansion of the Charleston program would directly benefit the
southeastern vegetable industry. Vegetable growers depend heavily on
synthetic pesticides to control diseases and pests. Cancellations of
many effective pesticides directly impacts future vegetable crop
production. Without the use of certain pesticides, producers will
experience crop failures unless other effective, non-pesticide control
methods are readily identified. In this context, 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. Research
like this can help provide U.S. growers with a competitive edge they
must have to sustain and keep their industry vibrant, allowing 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 at the U.S.
Vegetable Laboratory could 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.
It is important to note that fiscal year 2012 funding for four USDA
ARS laboratories (Charleston, South Carolina; East Lansing, Michigan;
Madison, Wisconsin; and Raleigh, North Carolina) totaled $11,004,900.
However, funding for all cucurbits equaled just $3,939,000 with only
$1,718,000 directed toward pickled vegetable research. For fiscal year
2013, PPI is requesting an additional $2,050,000 in program
enhancements that will provide needed research for pickled vegetables.
U.S. VEGETABLE LABORATORY, CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA
There is a critical need to establish and fund a plant pathology
position to address cucumber diseases, especially the disease caused by
a new strain of the downy mildew pathogen responsible for recent
extensive damage to cucumber production in South Atlantic and
Midwestern States. The pathologist is needed to characterize pathogen
strains and to develop new management approaches, as well as resistant
cucumber varieties, to combat the disease. Ultimately, this proposed
plant pathologist would accomplish research that results in effective
protection of cucumbers from disease without the use of conventional
pesticides.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year:
2012 (pickled vegetables)........................... $456,100
2013 (proposed budget).............................. 456,100
2013 additional request (plant pathologist and 500,000
support)...........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOD SCIENCE RESEARCH UNIT, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
The current funding includes research and development for a variety
of vegetable products, including fermented and acidified vegetables. To
carry out new research initiatives to reduce energy and water use,
reduce environmental impact from commercial fermentations, and develop
new health-promoting food (probiotic) technology, we request additional
support for the Food Science Research Unit of $500,000 in fiscal year
2013. This will provide support for Post-Doctoral or Pre-Doctoral
research associates in food engineering and food microbiology along
with necessary equipment and supplies to develop these new areas of
research.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year:
2012 (pickled vegetables)........................... $647,800
2013 (proposed budget).............................. 647,800
2013 additional request (post-doctoral and pre- 500,000
doctoral research associate and support)...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VEGETABLE CROPS RESEARCH LABORATORY UNIT, MADISON, WISCONSIN
Emerging diseases, such as downy mildew of cucumber, threaten
production of the crop in all production areas. Therefore, we request
an additional $500,000 to fully fund the scientists and support staff
in fiscal year 2013, including graduate students and post-doctorates
for researching genetic resistance to emerging diseases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year:
2012 (pickled vegetables)........................... $456,600
2013 (proposed budget).............................. 456,600
2013 additional request (post-doctoral and pre- 500,000
doctoral research associate and support)...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUGAR BEET AND BEAN RESEARCH UNIT, EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN
The current funding is far short of the level needed to carry out
research on inspection, sorting and grading of pickling cucumbers and
other vegetable crops to assure the processing and quality of pickled
products. An increase of $550,000 in the current base funding level
would be needed to fund the research engineer position.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year:
2012 (pickled vegetables)........................... $157,500
2013 (proposed budget).............................. 157,500
2013 additional request (research engineer and 550,000
support)...........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your consideration and expression of support for the
USDA/ARS.
______
Letter From the Rural Coalition/Coalicion Rural, et. al
March 30, 2012.
Hon. Herb Kohl, Chairman,
Hon. Roy Blunt, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators: As the Senate considers the Agriculture
Appropriation for fiscal year 2013, we respectfully request that the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development
and FDA provide adequate funding for a set of critical programs that
make a real difference in communities that most need support.
The 2008 Farm Bill made significant improvements in programs
designed to address the outreach and technical assistance challenges of
historically underserved producers. We urge you to provide long-term
protection and continued funding for this critical subset of programs
and offices charged with serving the most chronically underserved
segments of agriculture. These represent a fraction of the full
agriculture budget but are the lifeblood of the sustainable agriculture
community, beginning, socially disadvantaged and veteran producers, and
farmworkers.
We urge you to consider the following recommendations:
Farm Credit.--Farm Service Agency (FSA) Direct Farm Ownership and
Operating Loans provide a crucial source of capital for farmers who are
ineligible for commercial credit. The final fiscal year 2011 continuing
resolution cut direct farm ownership loan funding by $175 million and
the fiscal year 2012 bill retained this lower level. Nearly $130
million worth of qualified applications were turned away in fiscal year
2011. This is the funding that is essential to create opportunities for
individuals to get into the farming business. To meet the challenges
faced by many farmers who are confronting increasing input costs and
volatile prices, it is critical to fund these direct operating loan
programs at the highest level possible. We ask that Congress
appropriate sufficient funds to provide for program levels of $600
million for Direct Farm Ownership loans and $1.05 billion for Direct
Operating Loans.
We further urge you to ensure that farmers and ranchers who are in
economic trouble receive fair loan restructuring and servicing of their
loans by funding the Federal match for State Mediation Programs at $5
million. These programs currently operate in 40 States. We urge the
Committee to instruct FSA to develop price information to improve
eligibility and lending capabilities to farmers growing for local and
regional food markets.
Tribal Communities.--We urge you to support and expand funding to a
level of $10 million for the Office of Tribal Relations Program to
enhance its ability to serve its function as a critical link between
the Department of Agriculture and the Nation's Tribes.
In addition, in order to provide critically needed services to
tribal producers, we urge you to expand funding for the Federally
Recognized Tribal Extension Program (FRTEP) to $10 million for fiscal
year 2013 to reach at least 100 of the 566 tribes. Congress mandates
research and extension services in every county in the Nation--over
3,100 offices nationwide, funded cooperatively by county, State, and
Federal levels of government. Extension services are not extended to
Indian Reservations, except through the limited Federal funds provided
through USDA to the FRTEP, the only vehicle by which extension programs
are currently delivered to Indian Country. Tribes contribute in-kind
cost share for office space and a small portion of operating expenses.
Only 36 extension agents are supported on Indian reservations with
current funding of $3 million. These programs have significantly
affected not only agriculture, but natural resources, 4-H/youth
development, human nutrition, community resource development and family
and consumer sciences program areas--much like the impacts seen in non-
reservation, county-based extension programs. The inadequate funding of
FRTEP has, without question, a profound negative impact on the long-
term viability of tribal agriculture, which remains a critical basis
for the economic security, health and nutrition of Native Americans.
Fewer than 4 percent of American Indians living on America's Indian
reservations have access to these programs, yet more than 97 percent of
America's counties have had robust programs since 1914. Increased
funding would allow FRTEP to serve better the many tribes who have
repeatedly requested full access to these programs. It is time that
Native American producers, families, youth and reservation residents
receive the same level of service as U.S. citizens who are not
reservation-bound. In order to correct this grave inequity, we urge you
to appropriate $10 million for this program in the fiscal year 2013
Agriculture Appropriation.
Farmworker Communities.--Farmworkers are a critical component of
our food and agriculture system. We urge you to maintain the Farmworker
Coordinator in the Office of Advocacy and Outreach (see below), restore
funding of at least $4 million annually for the Grants to Improve the
Agricultural Labor Workforce Program, and provide at least $2 million
to the Emergency Disaster Grants for Farmworkers program to provide
funding for services to farmworkers affected by natural disasters and
keep this critically needed workforce in place in disaster affected
areas.
Coordination Activities.--For many years, beginning and socially
disadvantaged producers have lacked an office at USDA to better
understand and utilize the wide array of USDA services. The Office of
Advocacy and Outreach, established in the 2008 Farm Bill, is now in
full operation and working effectively with communities across the
Nation to provide equitable access to its programs and enhance the
viability and profitability of small farms, beginning farmers and
ranchers, and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and
farmworkers. An increase to $5 million would fund the staffing and
operational needs of this office to allow OAO to adequately conduct its
activities related to overseeing the Advisory Committees on Minority
Farmers and Beginning Farmers and Ranchers, overseeing the activities
of the Office of Small Farms Coordination and the Farm Worker
coordinator; managing the 1890, 1994 and Hispanic-serving institutions
programs; managing outreach programs and performing any other outreach
functions that improve coordination among USDA agencies to improve
their ability to enhance access to USDA programs for underserved
constituencies. We urge Congress to provide at least $5 million to this
office to allow it to continue to provide the important coordination
services it is designed to deliver.
Rural Housing.--These Federal rural housing programs provide loans,
grants and related assistance that create jobs and ensure that low-
income families live in safe, decent housing. Of particular importance
is maintaining adequate funding levels for the Section 502 Direct Loan
program, the Mutual Self Housing program, and programs to finance Rural
Rental Housing construction and preservation.
Under the Section 502 Direct Loan program, nearly 66 percent of the
families receiving loans have incomes at or below 60 percent of area
median income and 40 percent of the loans go to households with incomes
at or below 50 percent of area median income. In fiscal year 2011, the
average total cost to the government for a Section 502 loan was less
than $7,200 per unit
We support funding levels for Rural Housing programs administered
by the Rural Housing Service (RHS) at USDA at the following levels:
--$900 million for the Section 502 Single Family Direct Homeownership
Loans;
--$28 million for the Section 504 Very Low-Income Rural Housing
Repair Loans;
--$29.5 million for the Section 504 Very Low-Income Rural Housing
Repair Grants;
--$26 million for the Section 514 Farm Labor Housing Program Loans;
--$9 million for the Section 516 Farm Labor Housing Program Grants;
--$64.5 million for the Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Program;
--$907 million for the Section 521 Multi-Family Rental Housing Rental
Assistance Program;
--$30 million for the Section 523 Self-Help Housing Program;
--$3.6 million for the Section 533 Housing Preservation Grants
Program;
--$150 million for the Section 538 Guaranteed Multi-Family Housing
Loans; and
--$46.9 million for the Multi-Family Housing Preservation and
Revitalization Program; and $13 million for the Rural Community
Development Initiative.
Farmers Market Nutrition Programs.--We strongly urge the Committee
to fund the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program at its fiscal year
2011 funded level of $20 million. The fiscal year 2012 cut will
translate into a loss of 25 percent in the benefits available to
eligible consumers this year who shop at our Nation's farmers' markets
and roadside stands. In fiscal year 2010, 2.15 million WIC participants
received FMNP benefits and over 18,000 farmers were authorized to
receive them at 3,647 farmers' markets and 2,772 roadside stands.
According to USDA's data, this translated into over $15.7 million in
revenue to farmers.
Conservation Programs.--We further urge you to protect and maintain
funding agricultural conservation programs including maintaining
support for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program and the
Conservation Stewardship Program, and other programs which are helping
producers across the Nation protect their land. The diverse producers
many of the undersigned groups represent are returning to USDA through
these programs, and building up small operations that care for the land
and contribute to the economic viability of small rural communities in
some of the poorest areas of the Nation.
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Account (IDA)
Program.--We urge you to provide $5 million for this program, as
authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill. This pilot program would enable low-
income, limited resource beginning farmers and ranchers to open an IDA
(matched savings account) to save for asset-building purchases,
including farmland, equipment, breeding stock, or similar expenditures.
In addition to the programs outlined in this letter, we urge you to
oppose changes in mandatory program spending to any existing, renewed,
or extended farm bill direct spending. These programs include the
Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers,
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, Farmers Market
Promotion Program, Community Food Project Competitive Grants, National
Organic Cost-Share Program, Organic Agriculture Research and Extension
Initiative, and the Rural Energy for America Program.
As you proceed with funding for these important programs for fiscal
year 2013, we urge you to consider the impacts of your funding
decisions on the future, a concern for the next generation of American
farmers and ranchers, and great care to being inclusive of beginning,
minority, tribal women, and limited resource farmers who are often in
most need of these important programs.
Sincerely,
Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters, Oakland, CA
American Federation of Government Employees Local 3354, St. Louis, MO
American Federation of Government Employees (AFL-CIO), Washington, DC
BioRegional Strategies, Albuquerque, NM
Birthing Project USA, Albuquerque, NM
California Food & Justice Coalition, Oakland, CA
Casa de Cultura, Las Vegas, NM
CASA del Llano, Inc., Hereford, TX
Church Women United in New York State, Rochester, NY
Community Food Security Coalition, Portland, OR
D.C. Farm to School Network, Washington, DC
Family Farm Defenders, Madison, WI
Farmworker Association of Florida, Apopka, FL
Federation of Southern Cooperatives, Atlanta, GA
Food & Water Watch, Washington, DC
Idaho Rural Council, Filer, ID
Intertribal Agriculture Council, Billings, MT
Just Food, NewYork, NY
Kentucky Resources Council, Inc., Frankfort, KY
Lideres Campesinas, Oxnard, CA
Live Real, Oakland, CA
National Family Farm Coalition, Washington, DC
National Hmong American Farmers, Inc., Fresno, CA
National Latino Farmers and Ranchers Trade Association, Washington, DC
National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC
National Women in Agriculture Association, Oklahoma City, OK
National Young Farmers' Coalition, Tivoli, NY
New Orleans Food & Farm Network, New Orleans, LA
Northern New Mexico Stockman's Association, Albuquerque, NM
Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project, Inc., Oklahoma City, OK
Rural Advancement Fund, Orangeburg, SC
Rural Coalition/Coalicion Rural, Washington, DC
Southern Regional Asset Building Coalition, Tuskegee, AL
Taos County Economic Development Corporation, Taos, NM
The Cornucopia Institute, Cornucopia,WI
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Office of Public Witness, Washington,
DC
United Farmers USA, Manning, SC
World Farmers, Inc., Lancaster, MA
______
Prepared Statement of the Rural Housing Development Corporation
On behalf of Rural Housing Development Corporation (RHDC), I would
like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony
on fiscal year 2013 Appropriations for two of Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Rural Housing Programs. I strongly urge this Subcommittee to
fund USDA Rural Housing programs at the higher of fiscal year 2012
levels or the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request: (1) $900
million for Section 502 Family Direct Homeownership Loans; and (2) $30
million for Section 523 Self-Help Housing Program.
RHDC is a nonprofit affordable housing organization in Utah. Since
1998, RHDC has promoted affordable housing opportunities to low-income
families living in Central Utah. Over 300 single family homes have been
built through USDA's Mutual Self-Help Housing program using the 502
loan in Central Utah and over 1,000 homes have been built across the
State of Utah.
About the Mutual Self-Help Housing Program
The Mutual Self Help Housing program takes the rural tradition of
barn-raising and puts it to use for families who, after working all day
and all week, spend their nights and weekends building their own home.
It is a model of how low-income families help themselves through sweat
equity. Without the opportunity, many of these families would never own
their own home. Consider the West family in Utah, a low-income family
of 5 (children ages 5, 3 and 1),who have lived in two-room log cabin
built in the 1880's. The cabin measures 21 by 26 feet, which is very
similar to a modes two-car garage.
In their own words:
``While we enjoy the `coziness' of our home, it does present some
challenges. The cabin is not well-insulated. We can feel the wind
through the single-paned windows and cracks throughout the house. Big
rainstorms cause leaks. Other than weather problems, we are not sure
which we have the most of living in the walls of our home: bees,
spiders or mice. Our home is on a cinderblock basement built into a
dike constructed to control the flooding of the river in the 1980's.
Because of our close proximity to the river and lake, we have had to
face additional challenges. This year the ground water is so high it
fills the septic tank, causing the sewer to back up. The high water
flow in the river also caused the water to seep through the cracks in
our basement floor. At the highest point, we had almost 2 feet of
standing water. Even though the water level has recently dropped, we
are left with the challenge of the profuse growth of mold. Every
summer, we have a mold problem in the basement. However, this year,
with the flooding, the mold is 100 percent worse. This makes us
concerned for our family's health.
``Unfortunately for us, moving is not an option at this time. For
these reasons, we are telling you our story--not to complain, but to
ask you for the much needed financial assistance in purchasing a new,
healthy home for our family through the Mutual Self Help Housing
Program. We cannot better our situation without your help.''
Families like the West family have found refuge in building their
own home and for that reason take great care in the homes they have a
major stake in. Of the 1,000+ homes built in Utah, there is a
foreclosure rate of less than 1 percent. This means that the 502 loans
borrowed are paid back with interest and perpetuated for future
families.
Economic Impact
The economic impact in Utah has been substantial; it is anticipated
that during 2011 and 2012, the Self Help Housing program would bring
Utah's economy approximately $58,210,788. The program also creates
employment opportunities in rural areas; each year in Utah, over 500
jobs are created for subcontracts, suppliers, realtors, and land
developers.
The Section 502 program provides loans to low- and very-low income
families at a low cost the Government, and as mentioned, has a very low
foreclosure rate. Sixty percent of the families borrowing direct loans
from USDA have incomes at or below 60 percent of the area median
income. The proposed budget contends that the 502 guarantee loan
program can assist families who are now receiving direct loans. There
is ample evidence to the contrary; including an Economic Research
Service report indicating that the guarantee loan program is not
working well in smaller, more isolated communities. Nor does the
guarantee loan product have a track record of serving households with
incomes at 60 percent AMI or less, while the direct loan program does.
The proposed change will not provide homeownership opportunities for
many of the current workforce in rural areas, who struggle to find
affordable rental housing that is both safe and adequate for their
family size. The loss of this program will also destabilize rural
workers, negatively impacting rural employers.
I would ask that the Subcommittee reconsider the proposed budget
and look at ways to reallocate the reduced spending level in a manner
that still supports the 502 and 523 programs as indicated above. I
appreciate your consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Self-Help Enterprises
Self-Help Enterprises is a regional nonprofit housing and community
development organization serving eight expansive counties in
California's agricultural San Joaquin Valley. Founded in 1965, Self-
Help Enterprises has developed nearly 6,000 self-help homes and 1,200
units of multifamily rental housing for farmworkers and other low wage
earners. In partnership with local governments, SHE has rehabilitated
or replaced 6,000 homes, assisted 1,500 first-time homebuyers, and
provided planning and technical assistance to dozens of small,
unincorporated communities meeting needs for safe drinking water and
wastewater treatment.
The Rural Housing Service's housing programs continue to be the
most effective, and in many cases, the only, resources which address
the critical housing needs of rural America. Self-Help Enterprises
strongly supports an appropriation to maintain USDA's Rural Housing
programs at the following levels.
--Section 502 Family Direct Homeownership Loans: $900 million
--Section 504 Very-Low Income Rural Housing Repair Loans: $28 million
--Section 504 Very-Low Income Rural Housing Repair Grants: $29.5
million
--Section 514 Farm Labor Housing Program Loans: $26 million
--Section 516 Farm Labor Housing Program Grants: $9 million
--Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Program: $64.5 million
--Section 521 Multi-Family Rental Housing Rental Assistance Program:
$907 million
--Section 523 Self-Help Housing Program: $30 million
--Section 533 Housing Preservation Grants Program: $3.6 million
--Section 538 Guaranteed Multi-Family Housing Loans: $150 million
--Multi-Family Housing Preservation and Revitalization Program: $46.9
million
--Rural Community Development Initiative: $13 million
Section 523 Mutual Self-Help Housing Program
No other program combines the unique features which make the Self-
Help program a success. The Section 523 grants provide support to Self-
Help sponsors who provide technical assistance, recruiting, training,
and supervising to families to earn ``sweat equity.'' This unique
construction method also promotes strong communities by building close
bonds among future neighbors. (PART review, www.expectmore.gov)
Created by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1968, the
USDA Rural Development Section 523 Mutual Self-Help Housing Program is
one of the best and most successful avenues to sustainable
homeownership for low-income rural Americans.
With its roots in the tradition of barn raising, mutual self-help
housing gives hardworking rural families the opportunity to work
together to achieve the dream of homeownership which individually could
not be attained. Mutual self-help housing programs, which still retain
a style reminiscent of pioneer barn raisings, provide the
organizational structure that allows low-income families to build the
homes they so desperately want and need. This includes the capital,
training and supervision, coordination, accounting, and myriad of other
technical skills necessary to any successful housing development
effort.
The concept is straightforward: groups of 6-12 low-income families
join together to pool their labor to build each other's homes, in the
process building a neighborhood for their community, for their
children, and for themselves. The future homeowners commit to
completing 65 percent of the work necessary to build the homes. At
Self-Help Enterprises, these families pour the concrete, frame the
walls, and install electrical wiring, heating ducts, roof framing, as
well as all finish, tile, paint, and trim. Reducing the labor cost of
the home reduces the total cost of the home, enabling lower-income
households to become homeowners and earn equity at the same time.
The economic benefits extend far beyond the individual homeowners.
As contractors are hired to turn raw land into subdivisions, local
vendors provide building materials and subcontractors complete
technical work such as plumbing. Local governments receive building
permit fees, and in the long term, property taxes from proud
homeowners. Rural communities, often plagued with an abundance of
substandard housing, gain an expanding stock of good housing and the
stability that comes to a community of homeowners.
In the San Joaquin Valley each year, as many as 120 hardworking
families each commit 1,400 hours, 40 hours per week, week after week,
through the heat of summer and the cold of winter, sharing the labor
necessary to build homes for their neighbors, their children and
themselves.
It is popular today to talk about the importance for homebuyers to
have ``skin in the game'' as protection against failed mortgages.
Mutual self-help families have more than skin in the game. They have
skin, sweat, and occasionally a bit of blood as they invest themselves
in the home of their dreams. And does it work? With 47 years of
experience behind us, those of us at Self-Help Enterprises say ``YES''
unequivocally. Self-help homebuilders achieve remarkable stability.
Despite being the lowest income of the Section 502 borrowers, our self-
help homebuilders have lower delinquency rates and very low foreclosure
rates.
No other path to homeownership for low-income families has proven
to be as successful.
Section 502 Direct Lending Program
The Section 502 Direct Loan program is an equally important element
of self-help housing, affording well-underwritten construction-to-
permanent mortgages that finance the home from the start of
construction to the final mortgage payment. But the reach of this model
mortgage program goes far beyond self-help households.
Since the Housing Act of 1961, the USDA 502 Direct Loan Program has
been a cornerstone of homeownership opportunity in rural America, with
over 2 million homeowners seizing the opportunity for an affordable
mortgage which would enable them to be homeowners in the town where
they live and work. For a surprisingly low Federal budget cost, the 502
Direct mortgage is a well underwritten, affordable, no gimmicks
financing for rural families who want to invest in homes and in their
communities.
No other Federal home ownership program can match the profile of
the families served by the section 502 direct loan program. The average
income for families receiving direct loans is $27,000. By law, 40
percent of families participating in the program have incomes that do
not exceed 50 percent of the median income. For the past 2 years at
Self-Help Enterprises, fully 60 percent of the borrowers have incomes
below 50 percent of median.
Despite serving families with limited economic means, the section
502 direct loan program is the most cost effective affordable housing
program in the Federal Government. In fiscal year 2011, the total per
unit cost for a homeownership loan to a low income family was less than
$7,200. There are a number of reasons for this overall low cost to the
Government. First, a low interest rate environment reduces the cost of
borrowing. Less well known is a longstanding requirement to recapture
subsidy when a house financed under section 502 is sold. Essentially a
family and the Government share in the appreciation on a home, taking
into account how long a family has lived in the house. Recapture
provides a substantial return to the Government.
Although the Section 502 Direct Loan Program lends to families with
limited incomes, the program has a record of success not only in
creating affordable homeownership opportunity, but also protecting the
Federal investment. For example, in 2010, USDA Rural Development in
California foreclosed on a mere 57 mortgages out of a loan portfolio of
nearly 10,000 loans. This is a foreclosure rate of just over 0.5
percent and stands in stark contrast to what is happening in the
conventional market in California.
It has been stated that the Section 502 guarantee program is an
alternative for families eligible for direct loans. It is not. The
average annual income for families receiving the guarantee is $48,000.
The majority of the loan guarantees go to households with incomes at or
above 100 percent of the median, and only about 5 percent of families
receiving guarantees make between 60-70 percent of the median. With the
inevitable end of the current low interest rate environment, interest
rates on 502 Guarantee loans will once again rise, and the number of
qualifying low income borrowers will drop, if not disappear altogether.
Summary
USDA's Rural Housing Service and the resources it delivers
represent vital resources to the people and the economies of rural
American communities so desperate for jobs. As the recession seems
finally to be fading in some areas of the country, its grip on rural
America is still devastatingly strong. This is no time to reduce the
investment so important to the recovery of Rural America.
______
Prepared Statement of the Self-Help Housing Corporation of Hawaii
The Self-Help Housing Corporation of Hawaii is requesting the same
allocations from fiscal year 2012 for the USDA Rural Development 502
Direct Loan Program, and the RD 523 Technical Assistance Mutual Self-
Help Housing Program. With the average sales price for a single family
house in Hawaii at $550,000, there would be no affordable housing for
homeownership in Hawaii without the USDA Rural Housing Programs.
Because of the extreme gap of income levels for low income families in
Hawaii and the average housing prices, even the ``workforce'' of Hawaii
cannot afford homeownership without the subsidies offered by these
programs.
Through the recent development of its 72 lot subdivision in a rural
low income neighborhood, SHHCH is able to offer homeownership
opportunities to 72 very low and low income families who will build
their own houses through the mutual self-help housing program. SHHCH is
providing more than 200 jobs with just this self-help housing project
with the construction of the infrastructure, materials and equipment
from building supply houses, and services from title companies,
appraisers, insurance companies, lenders, etc. With the Federal funding
of these programs acting as a catalyst, SHHCH has been able to leverage
another $11 million in private financing to undertake this development.
Additionally, very low and low income families, who presently live in
sub-standard, and severely crowded situations, not only improve their
housing situations, but also gain equity; thereby, continuing to
improve their lives.
The Self-Help Housing Corporation has built 591 self-help units
throughout the State of Hawaii with firemen, policemen, teacher's
aides, hospital workers, hotel workers, laborers, and those considered
the ``workforce'' of Hawaii. Currently, in a remote rural area of Maui,
SHHCH is assisting native Hawaiian low income families to build three
and four bedroom houses through the RD 523 and RD 502 Direct Loan
Programs. This is the first affordable housing program in Hana in 35
years. Some of these self-help builders have no electricity or potable
water in their existing houses. Without these Rural Housing Programs,
these families, and thousands of rural low income families across the
country would continue to live in severely sub-standard conditions,
some without electricity and potable water; conditions I saw as a Peace
Corps volunteer in third world countries!
In the past 3 years more than 3,500 low income families in more
than 37 States have built their own houses through the RD 523 Technical
Assistance Program in tandem with the RD 502 Direct Loan Program. With
a cost of approximately $5,000 to subsidize the program over the entire
33 year amortization period, these programs are less expensive than
rental subsidy programs. Through these programs not only does the
family improve their living situation, gain equity, and learn
invaluable skills in leadership, team work, and building skills, but
the community benefits with a broadening of the tax base, an
enhancement of property values, and an establishment of stable
neighborhoods with well maintained houses. Every 100 homes built in
this program results in 324 jobs, $21.1 million infused in the local
economy, and $2.2 million paid in for tax revenues. These significant
housing programs are assisting to rebuild the economy in rural areas.
I urge you, as at the leaders of our country, to consider funding
such valuable community development programs at the fiscal year 2012
funding levels.
______
Prepared Statement of the School Nutrition Association
The School Nutrition Association (SNA) strongly supports approval
of the $35 million requested by the Food and Nutrition Service for
School Meal Equipment Grants. Many School Food Authorities (SFAs)
throughout the Nation have a significant need to replace and upgrade
their equipment, particularly as we all work to implement the final
rule revising school lunch and school breakfast meal standards. Most
importantly, new equipment will directly benefit the millions of
children that school food service professionals serve each and every
school day by enabling SFAs to provide more fruits and vegetables, and
enabling SFAs to maintain, expand, and establish school breakfast
programs throughout the Nation.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, SNA represents more than
55,000 members who provide high-quality, low-cost meals to students
across the country. We appreciate your continuing support for all
school meal programs. These programs are needed more than ever before
and we want to work with you to improve the efficiency and integrity of
school meals.
Our members are charged with several simultaneous tasks. First,
they must provide the best meal possible. Second, they must provide the
safest meal possible. Third, they must do so within extremely tight
budget limits that often do not leave any resources for replacing and
upgrading equipment on a regular basis.
School meals must be nutritious and varied in order to qualify for
Federal reimbursement, and to maintain student interest. As a result of
both the new meal pattern standards and requirements of the Healthy,
Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, SFAs are required to serve both a greater
volume and a wider array of fruits and vegetables. We are prepared to
meet that challenge, but many SNA members will need additional
refrigeration equipment, storage equipment, and food preparation
equipment in order to meet these requirements. Equipment assistance is
vitally needed to fully achieve the requirement for nutritious and
varied meals.
Food safety is a tremendous responsibility. SNA members take great
care to provide safe food for the benefit of each child, and for the
integrity of school meal programs. Old equipment that is in need of
constant repair or is scheduled to be replaced jeopardizes food safety.
Equipment assistance is vitally needed to help ensure the continued
provision of safe food.
And while we certainly recognize and respect the financial
challenges facing the Federal budget, one school food service
professional after another is prepared to tell you about the difficult
budget situations they face in their States, their school districts,
and their individual schools. Many areas that have traditionally been
well off financially are facing significant budget difficulties. We see
this in our schools every day as more and more students move from paid
meals to reduced price meals to free meals as families face economic
difficulties. As a consequence, school food service professionals are
managing tighter and tighter budgets, and are forced to put off
replacing and upgrading equipment more than they should. Equipment
assistance is vitally needed to help SFAs deal with little or no local
resources for replacing and upgrading equipment.
It is well known that the $100 million provided by the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the $25 million provided as part of
the fiscal year 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act made a positive
difference for the 6,500 successful applicants. Yet many more SFAs need
to upgrade their equipment. There were 25,000 applications submitted
for the prior program, with priority having been given to school
districts where 50 percent or more students are eligible for free or
reduced price meals.
As an example of what this prior funding accomplished, Burlington,
Vermont, schools received several ARRA fund grants. Most went into
walk-in coolers and one went into a Blodgett oven. The new walk-in
coolers have given the Burlington schools the ability to provide more
fresh fruits and vegetables to their students daily. Between the use of
salad bars, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, breakfast, and
after-school suppers and snacks they are now providing at least 8+
fruit and vegetable choices daily, to all students K-12. In addition,
the increased refrigeration space has improved their food safety and
storage capacity as well as reducing energy costs, noise and heat in
their kitchens. The addition of the oven, which replaced a 25+ year old
electric model, was not only more cost effective, but also reduced
cooking times and improved food quality.
The amount requested as part of the fiscal year 2013 FNS budget is
projected to assist up to 10,000 schools in 15 to 25 States make
similar improvements.
We also would like to respectfully point out that many schools
serving fewer than 50 percent free and reduced price meals need
equipment assistance. While SNA understands the desire to prioritize
who may be eligible for this assistance, schools serving fewer than 50
percent free and reduced price meals face the same budgetary problems
and equipment needs. The prior program established an assistance scale
for SFAs with less than 50 percent free and reduced price
participation. If a school applying had less than 30 percent F&R, they
would only have been reimbursed for 25 percent of the cost of the
equipment. This discouraged SFAs from applying at all last time. The
situation is further complicated by the Paid Equity requirement
included in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. This provision requires
SFAs with meal prices below the Federal reimbursement rate to increase
their prices, even if they are already covering all of their costs.
SFAs are relying on paying students for most of their income, and find
that any price increase usually means a drop in participation. This
drop in participation makes it even harder for SFAs to derive
sufficient revenue to replace equipment absent a full grant. We hope
that FNS will have the flexibility to consider additional methods for
prioritization of grant applications in addition to just meal
participation rates.
We thank you for this opportunity to share our support for the
requested $35 million for School Meal Equipment Grants, and look
forward to continue to work with you in the future.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society for Women's Health Research
The Society for Women's Health Research (SWHR) is pleased to submit
written testimony to urge the Committee to increase the fiscal year
2013 budget authority (BA) appropriations (non-user fees) for the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to $2.656 billion, resulting in a 6
percent increase over 2012. This allocation will allow the agency to
provide necessary and critical improvements in infrastructure, address
resource shortages, and support needed investment into the Office of
Women's Health (OWH), the focal point on women's health within the
Agency.
SWHR, a national nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC, is
widely recognized as the thought leader in research on sex differences
and is dedicated to improving women's health through advocacy,
education, and research. SWHR was founded in 1990 by a group of
physicians, medical researchers and health advocates who wanted to
bring attention to the myriad of diseases and conditions that affect
women uniquely.
Insufficient investment in this important agency prevents the FDA
from fully achieving its mission and threatens the health, economic and
national security of the Nation. While SWHR recognizes the need for
responsible discretionary spending, proper and sustained funding of the
FDA must remain a public priority. The increase of $150 million to FDA
reflects the Agency's increased responsibilities and workload.
Appropriate funding of the FDA by Congress is vital for it to fulfill
its mission. Americans rely on the FDA every day, from promoting
wellness and meeting healthcare needs to ensuring the food supply and
keeping drugs safe and effective. Altogether, 25 percent of every
consumer dollar spent in America is spent on products regulated by the
FDA.
This level of investment will allow the FDA to foster a 21st
century culture of proactive science and research leadership that will
better meet the demands and expectations of the American public. Each
year, over 80 percent of FDA's budget is allocated toward the salary of
its scientists and staff, making a substantial investment in
infrastructure needs, technology, and human collateral all but
impossible. Until the budgetary allocation from Congress is enough to
allow FDA to invest in staffing and infrastructure needs, the FDA will
continue to act in a reactionary manner against the emerging or known
threats to food and drug security.
FDA and Sex Differences Research
In the past decades, scientists have uncovered significant
biological and physiological differences between men and women. Sex
differences have been found everywhere, from the composition of bone
matter to the metabolism of certain drugs, to the rate of
neurotransmitter synthesis in the brain. Sex-based biology, the study
of biological and physiological differences between men and women, has
revolutionized the way that the scientific community views the sexes.
America's drug development process continues to advance in delivering
new and better targeted medications to combat disease; however,
medication effectiveness and safety could be better targeted to women
and men if analysis of sex and gender differences would be done
routinely during review processes at FDA.
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 at FDA, working directly with the various centers to advance
the science in this area, collaborating on programs, projects, and
research.
Unfortunately, FDA's requirement that the data acquired during
research of a new drug or device's safety and efficacy be reported and
analyzed as a function of sex is not universally enforced.
Information about the ways drugs may differ in various populations
(e.g., women may require a lower dosage because of different rates of
absorption or metabolism) are often unexplored, or female enrollment in
studies is too low to adequately power statistically significant
results. As a result, this information is not able to be transmitted to
healthcare providers and the potential benefit of a more appropriate
medical option is not available to the patient, man or woman.
SWHR believes that the opportunity to translate this information to
patients exists now. Sex differences data discovered from clinical
trials can be presented to the medical community and to patients
through education, drug labeling and packaging inserts, and other forms
of alerts directed to key audiences. SWHR encourages the FDA to
continue addressing the need for accurate, sex-specific drug and device
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.
FDA Must Improve Its IT Infrastructure
The FDA is tasked with guarding the safety, efficacy, and security
of human drugs, biological products, and medical devices, yet still
does not have sufficient resources to establish and maintain the
information technology needed to appropriately analyze the information
that FDA receives. This lack of appropriate IT systems inhibits the FDA
from fulfilling its mission and prevents appropriate sex differences
analysis from being conducted. A 2007 Science Board Report, requested
by former Commissioner von Eschenbach, found that FDA's IT systems were
inefficient and incapable of handling the current demands placed on the
Agency.
Tremendous advances have been made throughout the Agency to
modernize in the 5 years since that initial report; however, it still
remains a challenge for the Agency to access and maintain the
information technology needed to meet the growing expectations from the
American public and to fulfill its mission. As technology continues to
advance, congressional investment in FDA must remain robust.
FDA is expected by Congress and the American public to have IT
systems that can quickly and effectively do appropriate data analyses
and reporting, safety analyses, tracking the natural history and
disease models for rare disorders, analyses of subpopulations within
the context of larger trials or comparative effectiveness research
(CER), access large amounts of clinical data, capture emerging trends,
and determine food and drug safety when a problem impacting the public
breaks out.
FDA Must Create a Centralized Database
The creation of a central database would provide a single
repository for all relevant facts about a certain product, including
where, when and how the product was made. Such a 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.
This database should allow for easier tracking of recruitment and
retention rates of women and minorities in clinical trials, which will
allow the FDA to monitor and collect data on how drugs, devices and
biologics affect men and women differently, and allow for sex
differences to be analyzed during the drug review process.
FDA IT Systems Must Encourage Electronic Submissions and Be
Able To Handle All Applications in an Electronic
Format
FDA must move away from a paper based system into a standardized
electronic format. This will aid in transforming Agency reviews, CER,
and further data analysis and reporting, such as sex differences.
FDA Office of Women's Health
The FDA's Office of Women's Health (OWH), like the Agency that
houses it, requires steady and sustained investment to remain a key
resource advocating for this important research. OWH at the FDA,
established in 1994, plays a critical role in women's health, both
within and Agency and as an information source to the public.
OWH's programs, often conducted with the Agency centers, focus on
women's health within the FDA and are critical to improving care and
increased awareness of disease-specific impacts on women. OWH works to
ensure 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 and approvals, but they cannot
fix the problem alone. Additionally, OWH endeavors to correct sex and
gender disparities in the areas for which the FDA has jurisdiction and
also monitors women's health priorities, providing both leadership and
an integrated approach to problem solving across the FDA. The OWH
continues to provide women with invaluable tools for their health and
ensure that the agency is examining sex and gender differences during
its review of new drugs, devices, and biologics.
To address OWH's growing list of priorities, SWHR recommends that
Congress support an additional $1 million budget for OWH for fiscal
year 2013 within the budget for the FDA. Each year, OWH exhausts its
budget as OWH's pamphlets are the most requested of any documents at
the Government printing facility in Colorado. More than 5 million OWH
pamphlets have been distributed to women across America, including
target populations such as Hispanic communities, seniors and low-income
citizens. Last year, the OWH's intramural research program funded over
23 new and 8 continuing research studies conducted by FDA scientists.
To date, over 50 concept papers were submitted. OWH has also
collaborated with CDRH to award a contract to Duke Research Institutes
for prospective assessment of clinical and patient-reported outcomes
for female patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)
procedures via femoral and radial access. Further, FDA OWH has worked
closely with CDRH on its publication of the Draft Guidance on the
Evaluation of Sex Differences in Medical Device Clinical Studies.
The value-added with congressional investment in FDA's OWH is
clear. The office provides women with the high quality and timely
information that American women need to make medical decisions on
behalf of them and their families. Further, OWH's website is a vital
tool for consumers and physicians. It is regularly updated to include
new and important health information. The website 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 type of information is
ideal for women to use in talking to their doctors, pharmacists, or
nurses about their treatment options. Such resources need to be
updated, evaluated, and disseminated to further impact improvements in
women's health.
OWH provides imperative information to the medical communities in
the form of web trainings to keep medical professionals up to date with
emerging science. OWH developed Sex and Gender Differences in Health
and Behavior, with assistance from the Office of Research on Women's
Health (ORWH) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop the
second in a web series of free courses on the ``Science of Sex and
Gender in Human Health''. Developed in partnership with the Health
Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), OWH developed online
courses in health literacy to help promote best practices for improving
patient/provider communication and addressing factors such as low
health literacy that limit a patient's ability to safely use their
medications.
OWH and Sex Differences Research
OWH funds 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 and a large number are published in peer reviewed journals. It
is critical for Congress to help preserve the vital functions of OWH
and to ensure that its budget is dedicated to the resource needs of the
office and to the projects, programs, and research it funds.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we thank this Committee for its strong
record of support for the FDA and women's health. SWHR recommends for
fiscal year 2013 BA appropriations (non-user fees) of $2.656 billion so
that the FDA may dramatically improve upon current operations and to
improve its staffing and infrastructure needs. Second, we urge you to
allocate $7 million for the Office of Women's Health for fiscal year
2013, and to ensure that future budget appropriations for the OWH never
fall below fiscal year 2012 funding levels of $6 million.
We look forward to continuing to work with the Committee to build a
stronger, healthier, and safer future for all Americans.
______
Prepared Statement of The Humane Society of the United States
As the largest animal protection organization in the country, we
appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to your Subcommittee on
fiscal year 2013 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 assistance for the following USDA
accounts:
--APHIS/Animal Welfare Act Enforcement--$27,087,000;
--APHIS/Horse Protection Act Enforcement--$891,000;
--APHIS/Investigative and Enforcement Services--$16,275,000;
--FSIS/Horse Slaughter--language mirroring fiscal year 2012 House
bill provision;
--FSIS/Humane Methods of Slaughter Act Enforcement--language
directing FSIS to ensure that inspectors hired with funding
previously specified for Humane Methods of Slaughter Act
enforcement focus their attention on overseeing compliance with
humane handling rules for live animals as they arrive and are
offloaded and handled in pens, chutes, and stunning areas;
--OIG/including Animal Fighting Enforcement--$85,621,000;
--NIFA/Veterinary Medical Services Act--$4,790,000;
--APHIS/Emergency Management Systems/Disaster Planning for Animals--
$1,017,000;
--APHIS/Wildlife Services Damage Management--reduce by $10 million;
and
--APHIS/Class B Dealers--language barring expenditures of funds for
licensing or renewal of licenses of any Class B Dealers who
sell dogs or cats for use in research, teaching, or testing.
At this time of intense budget pressure, we thank you for your
outstanding past support for enforcement of key animal welfare laws by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture and we urge you to sustain this
effort in fiscal year 2013. While we understand the focus on reducing
Federal spending, we believe there should be room for careful
decisionmaking within the budget to achieve macro-level cuts and at the
same time ensure adequate funding for specific accounts that are vital
and have previously been underfunded.
Your leadership is making a difference, helping to protect the
welfare of millions of animals across the country and upholding the
values of the American public. As you know, better enforcement also
directly benefits American citizens by: (1) preventing the sale of
unhealthy pets from unlawful commercial breeders, commonly referred to
as ``puppy mills''; (2) improving laboratory conditions that may
otherwise impair the scientific integrity of animal-based research; (3)
reducing risks of disease transmission from, and dangerous encounters
with, wild animals in or during public exhibition; (4) minimizing
injury, loss, and death of pets on commercial airline flights due to
mishandling and exposure to adverse environmental conditions; (5)
decreasing food safety risks to consumers from sick animals who can
transmit illness, and injuries to slaughterhouse workers from suffering
animals; and (6) dismantling orchestrated dogfights and cockfights that
often involve illegal gambling, drug trafficking, human violence, and
can contribute to the spread of costly illnesses such as bird flu. In
order to continue the important work made possible by the Committee's
prior support, we request the following for fiscal year 2013.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)/Animal Welfare Act
(AWA) Enforcement
We request that you support level funding of $27,087,000 for AWA
enforcement under APHIS. We commend the Committee for responding in
recent years to the urgent need for increased funding for the Animal
Care division. The funding has helped improve inspections by Animal
Care of approximately 12,870 sites, including commercial breeding
facilities, laboratories, zoos, circuses, and airlines, to ensure
compliance with AWA standards. In May 2010, USDA's Office of Inspector
General released a report criticizing the agency's history of lax
oversight of dog dealers, finding that inhumane treatment and horrible
conditions often failed to be properly documented and yielded little to
no enforcement actions. While Agriculture Secretary Vilsack called for
more inspections and a tougher stance on repeat offenders, the agency
must have the resources to follow through on that commitment. USDA is
also implementing a new responsibility created by Congress in 2008--
enforcing 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 122 inspectors (with
14 vacancies that are in the process of being filled), compared to 64
inspectors at the end of the 1990s. An appropriation at the requested
level would help the agency continue to address the concerns identified
by the OIG, enforce the new puppy import ban, and provide adequate
oversight of the many licensed/registered facilities.
APHIS/Horse Protection Act (HPA) Enforcement
We request that you support $891,000, the amount provided in last
year's Senate bill, 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. Though soring has been illegal
for 40 years, this cruel practice continues unabated by the well-
intentioned but seriously understaffed APHIS inspection program and the
inherent conflicts of interest in the industry self-policing system
established to supplement Federal enforcement. A report released in
October 2010 by USDA's Office of Inspector General documents these
problems and calls for increased funding to enable the agency to more
adequately oversee the law. Several horse show industry groups, animal
protection groups, and the key organization of equine veterinarians
have also 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 shows when
USDA inspectors arrive. With current funding Animal Care is able to
attend only about 10 percent of the more than 500 Tennessee Walking
Horse shows held annually. We greatly appreciate the enactment of a
modest increase for Horse Protection Act enforcement last year
(bringing the budget for this to $696,000), the first time in decades
that the program received more than $500,000. An appropriation at the
requested level will help ensure that this program doesn't lose ground
but instead builds on last year's crucial first step in addressing the
need for additional inspectors, training, security--for threats of
violence against inspectors--and advanced detection equipment.
APHIS/Investigative and Enforcement Services
We request that you support level funding of $16,275,000 for APHIS
Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES). We appreciate the
Committee's consistent support for this division. IES 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. An appropriation at the requested level would
enable the agency to keep pace with the additional enforcement
workload.
Horse Slaughter
We request inclusion of the same language barring USDA from the
expenditure of funds for horse slaughter inspection as was included in
the Committee's fiscal year 2012 Agriculture Appropriations bill. This
provision is vital to prevent renewed horse slaughter activity in this
country.
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)/Humane Methods of Slaughter
Act (HMSA) Enforcement
We request language to ensure strengthened HMSA enforcement. We
appreciate the Committee's inclusion of language in the fiscal year
2012 Committee report regarding humane slaughter. USDA oversight of
humane handling rules for animals at slaughter facilities is vitally
important not only for animal welfare but also for food safety.
Effective day-to-day enforcement can prevent abuses like those
previously documented in undercover investigations, and reduce the
chance of associated food safety risks and costly recalls of meat and
egg products. We therefore urge inclusion of language directing FSIS to
ensure that inspectors hired with funding previously provided
specifically for Humane Methods of Slaughter Act enforcement focus
their attention on overseeing compliance with humane handling rules for
live animals as they arrive and are offloaded and handled in pens,
chutes, and stunning areas.
Office of Inspector General/Animal Fighting Enforcement
We request that you support level funding of $85,621,000 for the
Office of Inspector General (OIG) to maintain staff, ensure
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. Its work with State and local agencies to 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, is commendable. Dogs bred and trained to
fight endanger public safety, and some dogfighters steal pets to use as
bait for training their dogs. Also, in 2002-2003 cockfighting was
linked to an outbreak of Exotic Newcastle Disease that cost taxpayers
more than $200 million to contain. Cockfighting has further been linked
to the death of a number of people in Asia reportedly exposed 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 Animal Welfare
Act, the Horse Protection Act, and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act
and downed animal rules.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture/Veterinary Medical Services
Act
We request that you support level funding of $4,790,000 to continue
the implementation of the National Veterinary Medical Service Act
(Public Law 108-161). We appreciate that Congress is working to address
the critical maldistribution 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. 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 support our Nation's defense against
bioterrorism. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 75 percent
of potential bioterrorism agents are zoonotic--transmitted from animals
to humans. Veterinarians 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 $142,613 on average, with an average starting
salary of $66,469. 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 repay
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 level funding 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
develops infrastructure to help prepare for and respond to animal
issues in a disaster and incorporate lessons learned from previous
disasters. Funds are used for staff time and resources to support the
efforts of State, county and local governments and humane organizations
to plan for protection of people with animals. They also enable the
agency to participate, in partnership with FEMA, in the National
Response Plan without jeopardizing other Animal Care programs.
APHIS/Wildlife Services Damage Management
We request that funding be reduced for Wildlife Services Damage
Management by $10 million. This is the amount that the USDA estimates
it spends annually on lethal predator control to protect livestock. In
light of record deficits, this is a wasteful subsidy that needs to be
terminated. Under its ``livestock protection'' program, Wildlife
Services provides taxpayer-subsidized wildlife extermination services
to private agribusiness. USDA data show that less than 1 percent of
livestock are killed by predators. Livestock producers and property
owners--not U.S. taxpayers--should be financially responsible for
protecting their property from damage attributed to wildlife. Expensive
lethal control methods used by Wildlife Services such as aerial
gunning, poisoning, and trapping are indiscriminate and ineffective,
often killing non-target species including endangered species protected
by Federal law and companion animals. Common sense non-lethal methods
like the use of guard animals (e.g., llamas, dogs), lighting, penning,
and good animal husbandry practices like shepherding are cheaper and
proven more effective in reducing predation to livestock. Ranchers have
no incentive to use these methods if the Federal Government continues
to pay for unlimited lethal control. By cutting this wasteful and
unnecessary program, we will ensure that U.S. taxpayers stop
subsidizing lethal wildlife control for the benefit of private
livestock producers and property owners.
APHIS/Class B Dealers
We also ask that you include a funding limitation as suggested
below regarding Class B Dealers. A September 2010 Government
Accountability Office report to Congress found that numerous Animal
Welfare Act violations have been documented during inspections of Class
B dealer facilities, seven of the nine licensed Class B dealers of
live, random-source dogs and cats at that time had one or more
violations, and several Class B dealers were under further
investigation by the USDA because of repeated violations. The USDA is
spending an inordinate amount of its limited resources in an attempt to
regulate these Class B dealers, especially considering that a 2009
study by the National Academies--``Scientific and Humane Issues in the
Use of Random Source Dogs and Cats in Research''--found that Class B
dealers are not necessary to supply random-source dogs and cats for
NIH-funded research.
Requested bill language: ``Provided, That appropriations herein
made shall not be available for any activities or expense related to
the licensing of new Class B dealers who sell dogs or cats for use in
research, teaching, or testing, or to the renewal of licenses of
existing Class B dealers who sell dogs or cats for use in research,
teaching, or testing''.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to share our views and
priorities for the Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related
Agencies Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2013. We are so 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, and
former Senator Joseph Tydings, we submit the following testimony
seeking funding for the USDA/APHIS Horse Protection Program of $891,000
for fiscal year 2013. We recognize that Congress is focused on the
imperative of cutting Federal spending. But we believe that it should
be possible to achieve meaningful reductions in the overall budget
while still addressing shortfalls in very specific accounts that are
vital and have been seriously underfunded. This $891,000 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 10 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, some of these organizations 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
affiliated with these organizations, 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 as
a whole has been a failure--the only remedy is to abolish the
conflicted industry-run inspection programs charged with self-
regulation and give USDA the resources it needs to adequately enforce
the act.
USDA appears to have attempted to step up its enforcement efforts
in recent years, and has begun to work with the Department of Justice
in prosecuting criminal cases as provided for under the act. In 2011, a
Federal prosecutor sought the first-ever criminal indictments under the
act and as a result, a well-known, winning trainer in the Spotted
Saddle Horse industry is serving a prison sentence of over 1 year. A
former Walking Horse Trainers' Association Trainer of the Year and
winner of the Tennessee Walking Horse World Grand Championship was
recently indicted on 52 counts (18 of them felony) of violating the act
and is awaiting trial.
While these are significant actions which should have a deterrent
effect, there are many other violators who go undetected, and many
cases which go unprosecuted--all due to a lack of resources. USDA needs
enhanced resources to carry out its responsibilities under this act, as
Congress, and the public, expects.
In years past, inspections were limited to physical observation and
palpation by the inspector. Protocols for the use of new technologies,
such as thermography and ``sniffer'' devices (gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry--or GC/MS--machines), have been implemented, which can
help inspectors identify soring more effectively and objectively. The
results of USDA's recent GC/MS testing for prohibited foreign
substances used by violators on the legs of horses (either to sore
them, or to mask underlying soring and evade detection by inspectors)
are staggering: 97.6 percent of the samples taken at various Tennessee
Walking Horse competitions in 2011 tested positive for illegal foreign
substances, and 86 percent tested positive in 2010.
Effective though this inspection protocol may be, due to budget
constraints, USDA has been unable to purchase and put enough of this
testing into use in the field, allowing for industry players to
continually evade detection. In 2011, USDA was able to afford to
collect and test samples at only three of the industry's largest shows;
in 2010, only five. With increased funding, the USDA could purchase
more equipment and hire and train more inspectors to use it properly,
greatly increasing its ability to enforce the HPA.
Currently, when USDA inspectors arrive at shows affiliated with
some industry organizations, many of the 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. Armed security is
frequently 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.
Lack of a consistent presence by USDA officials at events featuring
Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, Spotted Saddle Horses and
other related breeds 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 gaited 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.
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 . . . allocated to the USDA to
enforce these rules and regulations.''
The USDA Office of Inspector General conducted an audit of the
Horse Protection Program, and issued its final report in September
2010. The report recommends the abolition of the DQP program, and an
increase in funding for APHIS enforcement of the Horse Protection Act.
The agency concurred with the findings and recommendations in the
report, specifically Recommendation 2: ``Seeking the necessary funding
from Congress to adequately oversee the Horse Protection Program,''
indicating that it would develop a budgeting and staffing plan to phase
in the resources needed to adequately oversee the Horse Protection
Program.
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.
UNDERSIGNED ORGANIZATIONS
Friends of Sound Horses, Inc.; former U.S. Senator Joseph Tydings;
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; Red
Rover; National Plantation Walking Horse Association; Plantation
Walking Horse Association of California; United Pleasure Walking Horse
Association; Gaitway 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; Northwest Gaited Horse Club; New York State
Plantation Walking Horse Club; Northwest Pleasure Tennessee Walking
Horse Association.
______
Prepared Statement of The Wildlife Society
The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to submit
testimony concerning the fiscal year 2013 budgets for the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, National Institute of Food and
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Farm Service
Agency. The Wildlife Society represents over 11,000 professional
wildlife biologists and managers dedicated to sound wildlife
stewardship through science and education. The Wildlife Society is
committed to strengthening all Federal programs that benefit wildlife
and their habitats on agricultural and other private land.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
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 managing
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
President's request is a $7 million decrease from fiscal year 2012 and
a $10 million decrease from fiscal year 2011. In recognition of the
important work that Wildlife Services performs regarding methods
development and wildlife damage management, we request that Congress
appropriate $94 million to Wildlife Services in fiscal year 2013.
A key budget line in Wildlife Service's operations is Methods
Development, which funds the National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC).
Much of the newest research critical to State wildlife agencies is
being performed at NWRC. In order for State wildlife management
programs to be the most up-to-date, the work of the NWRC must continue.
We recommend funding Methods Development at $18 million in fiscal year
2013.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
The Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) provides an expanded,
comprehensive extension program for forest and rangeland renewable
resources. 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 because of continuing
fragmentation of land ownership, urbanization, diversity of landowners
needing assistance, and increasing societal concerns about land use and
increasing human impacts on natural resources. The Wildlife Society
recommends that the Renewable Resources Extension Act be funded at $10
million.
The McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Program is essential to
the future of resource management on non-industrial private forestlands
while conserving natural resources, including fish and wildlife. As the
demand for forest products grows, privately held forests will be
increasingly needed to supplement supplies obtained from national
forest lands. However, commercial trees take many decades to produce.
In the absence of long-term research, such as that provided through
McIntire-Stennis, the Nation might not be able to meet future forest-
product needs as resources are harvested. We appreciate the $33 million
in funding allocated in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process and
urge that amount to be continued in fiscal year 2013.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Farm bill conservation programs are more important than ever, given
the huge backlog of qualified applicants, increased pressure on
farmland from biofuels development, urban sprawl, and the concurrent
declines in wildlife habitat and water quality. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), which administers many farm bill
conservation programs, is one of the primary Federal agencies ensuring
our public and private lands are made resilient to climate change. NRCS
does this through a variety of programs that are aimed at conserving
land, protecting water resources, and mitigating effects of climate
change.
One key program within the overall NRCS discretionary budget is
Conservation Operations. The total fiscal year 2013 request for
Conservation Operations is $828 million, level with fiscal year 2012
but down from $871 million in fiscal year 2011. Conservation
Operation's Technical Assistance (TA) subactivity provides funding for
NRCS to support implementation of the various farm bill programs. The
fiscal year 2013 budget recommends level funding for TA, which is a
decrease of $26 million from the fiscal year 2011 level of $755
million. The Wildlife Society encourages you to return funding for TA
to the fiscal year 2011 level of $755 million.
Overall, The Wildlife Society believes more attention to TA
delivery is needed. Changes in the 2008 farm bill greatly increased the
number of conservation programs NRCS was required to support through
delivery of TA. In addition, Congress expanded TA eligible activities
in the 2008 farm bill to include conservation planning, education and
outreach, assistance with design and implementation of conservation
practices, and related TA services that accelerate conservation program
delivery. TA will require funding levels from OMB that are more than
what was historically allocated if NRCS is to fulfill congressional
intent as expressed in the 2008 farm bill. Recently, Congress allowed
the use of mandatory funds for TA and, under current economic
conditions, The Wildlife Society believes that such funds must continue
to be utilized for effective delivery to occur. The Wildlife Society
urges Congress to authorize up to 30 percent of each mandatory
program's funding for Technical Service Provider provisions as mandated
by the 2008 farm bill and additional technical assistance to provide
resources necessary to help meet NRCS TA shortfalls. Similarly, we
strongly encourage Congress to explore new ways of funding technical
assistance in fiscal year 2013 and beyond.
The Wildlife Society also supports the continuation of funding for
the Conservation Effects Assessment Project. Information gathered from
this effort will greatly assist in monitoring accomplishments and
identifying ways to further enhance effectiveness of NRCS programs.
The Wildlife Society recommends farm bill conservation programs be
funded at levels mandated in the 2008 farm bill. Demand for these
programs continues to grow during this difficult economic climate at a
time when greater assistance is needed to address natural resource
challenges and conservation goals, including climate change, soil
quality deficiencies, declining pollinator health, disease and invasive
species, water quality and quantity issues, and degraded, fragmented
and lost habitat for fish and wildlife.
We would like to specifically highlight the Wildlife Habitat
Incentive Program (WHIP), a voluntary program for landowners who want
to improve wildlife habitat on agricultural, non-industrial, 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 appreciate the
proposed increase in WHIP funding, to $73 million in fiscal year 2013
from $50 million in fiscal year 2012, but would urge Congress to fully
fund WHIP at $85 million.
The Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentives Program was
first authorized in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(2008 farm bill) for $50 million for fiscal year 2008-2012, and was
administered by the Farm Service Agency. This funding has expired, and
the fiscal year 2013 budget includes $5 million for the program within
the NRCS budget. The Wildlife Society commends the administration for
continuing to fund this program in fiscal year 2013. These funds will
assist State and Tribal governments with needed resources to provide
the public with additional outdoor opportunities. In addition,
increased public access opportunities will help create jobs and
stimulate rural economies. Continuity of program funding is critical to
these programs that rely on landowner interest across multiple years.
Farm Service Administration
The administration's request would increase funding for the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2013,
up from $2.07 billion in fiscal year 2012. This increase assumes a CRP
enrollment of 6 million acres in 2012. The Wildlife Society applauds
FSA efforts to have a 6 million acre general sign-up in 2012, and to
more fully utilize CRP enrollment authority to address conservation
needs. Lands enrolled in CRP are important for the conservation of soil
on some of the Nation`s most erodible cropland. These lands also
contribute to water quantity and quality, provide habitat for wildlife
that reside on agricultural landscapes, sequester carbon, and provide a
strategic forage reserve that can be tapped as a periodic compatible
use in times when other livestock forage is limited due to drought or
other natural disasters. We strongly encourage Congress to fund CRP at
a level that fully utilizes program enrollment authority through CRP
general sign-up. We are pleased with and support the general sign-up
and target enrollment of 6 million acres FSA included in the fiscal
year 2012 budget. However, we are concerned about the proposed
reduction in the acreage cap from 32 million to 30 million.
Thank you for considering the views of wildlife professionals. We
look forward to working with you and your staff to ensure adequate
funding for wildlife conservation. Please feel free to contact Laura
Bies, Director of Government Affairs, at laura@wildlife.org if you need
further information or have any questions.
______
Letter From the USA Rice Federation
March 30, 2012.
Hon. Herb Kohl, Chairman,
Hon. Roy Blunt, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: USA Rice Federation's Fiscal Year 2013 Agriculture Appropriations
Requests
Dear Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Blunt: This is to convey the
rice industry's requests for fiscal year 2013 funding and related
policy issues for selected programs under the jurisdiction of your
subcommittee. 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, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Tennessee, 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. The rice
industry annually supports about 128,000 jobs and more than $34 billion
of economic output nationally.
USA Rice understands the budget constraints the subcommittee faces
when developing the fiscal year 2013 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 farm-safety-net support levels provided by this vital
legislation through more restrictive payment limitations or other means
and encourage the subcommittee and committee to resist such efforts
during the appropriations process, especially given that the 2008 Farm
Bill will be debated and reauthorized this year, is paid for, and
represents a five-year contract with America's producers. USA Rice also
strongly opposes reducing the farm-safety net to appropriate funds for
other Federal programs. We urge that the President's fiscal year 2013
legislative proposals be rejected that would eliminate farm-bill
commodity programs, change crop-insurance provisions, and reduce
conservation-program funding. We also urge that the Natural Resources
Conservation Service technical-assistance user-fee proposal be
rejected.
A list of the programs the USA Rice Federation supports for
appropriations in fiscal year 2013 are as follows:
MARKET ACCESS
Exports are critical to the U.S. rice industry. About 50 percent of
the U.S. crop is exported annually in a highly competitive world-rice
market. Those directly involved in U.S. rice exports contributed $6
billion in output and supported more than 14,000 jobs. The Market
Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development (FMD) Program play
key roles in helping to promote U.S. rice sales overseas. USA Rice
Federation industry members spend $4 in matching funds for each $1 of
FAS funds received. The USA Rice Federation uses MAP and FMD funding in
over 20 markets to conduct successful export-market-development
initiatives.
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 2013 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 2013 at
the authorized level of $200 million.
In addition, the Foreign Agricultural Service should be funded to
the fullest degree possible to ensure adequate support for trade-policy
initiatives and oversight of export programs. These programs are
critical for the economic health of the U.S. rice industry.
FOOD AID
Food-aid sales historically account for an important portion of
U.S. rice exports. We urge the subcommittee to fund Public Law 480
Title I. No Title I funding has been provided since fiscal year 2006.
At a minimum, fiscal year 2013 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.
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 amount required by
statute. We encourage the subcommittee 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 U.S. 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, USDA's fiscal year 2013 budget estimate of $170 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.
RESEARCH
U.S. agricultural-research needs are great and the challenges are
plentiful. USA Rice strongly supports funding for the core-capacity
programs at land-grant institutions, USDA's intramural-research
activities, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture and its
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative at levels that would continue
the commitment to strong agricultural research by and through USDA.
FARM SERVICE AGENCY, RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
CONSERVATION SERVICE
We encourage the subcommittee to provide adequate funding so the
agencies can deliver essential programs and services, including for
improved computer hardware and software. Our members fear a serious
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 subcommittee receives
and have restricted our comments accordingly.
Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations.
Sincerely,
Reece Langley,
Vice President, Government Affairs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wisconsin Walnut Council
Mister Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record. I am
writing to share my concerns regarding a recently recognized Thousand
Cankers Disease (TCD) that poses an enormous economic and ecological
risk to our Nation's black walnut resources. Over the past decade, TCD
has caused the death of millions of black walnut trees in nine western
States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, New Mexico,
Nevada, Utah, and Washington) and recently has been discovered in the
native walnut range (Tennessee, Virginia and Pennsylvania). The USDA-
APHIS has estimated the standing value of walnut timber as being $539
Billion. This does not include potential loss of: Jobs related to
logging, transportation, and domestic milling; derivatives of the
domestic milling industry to make veneer and lumber for furniture,
cabinetry, paneling, flooring, and gun stocks; export market accounts
for about 60 percent of the harvested logs; and nuts are shelled into
nutmeats and the shells are processed for many industrial uses.
The negative economic impacts of TCD will be felt by private
landowners with immature walnut timber and by home owners with millions
of walnut trees in residential areas of the Midwest and Eastern States.
It will be any ugly site and very expensive to safely remove all the
walnut trees as they succumb to TCD over the next couple of decades if
this disease is not contained, suppressed, and locally eradicated.
Research efforts to date have been limited to monitoring, ecological
studies of the walnut twig beetle, epidemiology of the fungal pathogen,
and development of phyto-sanitation treatment of walnut logs harvested
in quarantined areas. Insecticide and fungicide application is not
feasible or practical as a means of controlling the spread of TCD.
Development of biological insect control of the walnut twig beetle is
expected to be the most effective and feasible technique in stopping
the advancement of TCD through the native range of black walnut.
While States are attempting to stop the spread of TCD through
surveys and quarantines, greater Federal assistance and funding are
needed. I request dedicated funding be allocated to the USDA-ARS for
leadership in the development of biological insect control techniques
of the walnut twig beetle and to the USDA-FS for continued efforts in
monitoring for TCD for fiscal year 2013.
What Is TCD?
TCD is a recently recognized disease in which a tiny walnut twig
beetle (Pityophthorus juglandis) spreads a fungal organism (Geosmithia
morbida) that causes cankers under the bark which prevents nutrient
flow to the foliage leading to dieback of branches and ultimately death
to the tree. While the walnut twig beetle advances only a mile or two
per year, humans are the vector that spread TCD great distances within
days by hauling walnut slabs with fresh bark attached that harbor the
tiny beetles and fungal spores. Such shipments are believed to be the
reason TCD moved into the native walnut range from the western States.
Movement of firewood, logs, stumps, and burls with fresh bark attached
can spread the disease great distances.
Need for Greater Federal Funding and Specific Directives
The USDA-APHIS considers both the walnut twig beetle and the fungal
pathogen to be indigenous to the USA (historical evidence shows them to
reside on a different walnut species in Arizona and New Mexico). Since
neither is considered exotic to the USA, APHIS is not productively
serving any role in combating TCD.
Federal funding needs to be directed to the USDA-ARS to lead
research and development of techniques that will contain, suppress, or
potentially locally eradicate the walnut twig beetle. Additional
funding needs to be directed to the USDA-FS for continued effort in
monitoring and development of phyto-sanitization treatment of walnut
logs harvested in quarantined areas.
I thank the committee for this opportunity to provide testimony on
this important subject. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you
should require additional information.
______
Letter From the Wyoming State Engineer's Office
Herschler Building, 4-E,
Cheyenne, Wyoming, March 29, 2012.
Hon. Herb Kohl, Chairman,
Hon. Roy Blunt, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for Designation to the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program of Not Less Than $18 Million of the Total
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Funding
Recommended in the President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget
Dear Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Blunt: This letter is sent in
support of the designation of $18 million of the fiscal year 2013
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) funding for the
Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Colorado River Salinity Control
(CRSC) Program. Realizing that agricultural on-farm strategies \1\
provided some of the most cost-effective strategies to control
salinity, the Congress in 1984 directed the USDA to implement its CRSC
Program. Since enactment of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA; 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 congressional recognition of the Federal
obligation and commitment to maintaining the EPA-adopted, basin-wide
water quality standards for salinity in the Colorado River. The USDA
has played a vital role in meeting that commitment over 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These strategies include reducing deep percolation of
irrigation water through salt-bearing shale formations below farmlands
across the Upper Colorado River Basin through improving irrigation
water application efficiency by changing from flood and furrow
irrigation methods to gated pipe, side-roll sprinkler and center-pivot
sprinkler and low-energy, precision application (LEPA) irrigation
practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 recommendation process includes suggesting
to the Department of Agriculture the funding amount the Forum believes
USDA should expend in the subsequent 2 years for its CRSC Program. The
combined efforts of the Basin States, the Bureau of Reclamation and the
USDA have resulted in one of the Nation's most successful nonpoint
source control programs.
The Colorado River provides municipal and industrial water for
nearly 33 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 3 million people and 500,000 acres in Mexico. The high
concentration of total dissolved solids (e.g., the water's salinity
concentration) in the water limits users' abilities to make the
greatest use of this water supply. This remains a major issue and
continuing concern in both the United States and Mexico. The water's
salinity concentration especially affects agricultural, municipal, and
industrial water users. The Bureau of Reclamation presently estimates
direct and computable salinity-related damages in the United States
amount to more than $300 million per year.
At its recent October 2012 meeting, the Forum recommended that the
USDA CRSC Program expend not less than $18 million of the Environmental
Quality Incentive Program's funding. In the Forum's judgment, this
funding is necessary to implement one of the most successful Federal/
State cooperative nonpoint source pollution control programs in the
United States.
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 $18 million of the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program funding for the USDA's CRSC Program during
fiscal year 2013. Thank you in advance for your consideration and this
statement's inclusion in the record for 2013 appropriations.
Respectfully submitted,
Patrick T. Tyrrell,
Wyoming State Engineer,
Member, 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...................... 163
American:
Commodity Distribution Association, Prepared Statement of the 164
Farm Bureau Federation, Prepared Statement of the............ 166
Forest & Paper Association, Prepared Statement of the........ 168
Honey Producers Association, Inc., Prepared Statement of the. 169
Indian Higher Education Consortium, Prepared Statement of the 174
Phytopathological Society, Prepared Statement of the......... 177
Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 178
Society:
For:
Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the.............. 178
Nutrition, Prepared Statement of the................. 182
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Prepared
Statement of the................................... 183
Of:
Agronomy; Crop Science Society of America; and Soil
Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of
the................................................ 180
Plant Biologists, Prepared Statement of the.......... 187
Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............. 188
Blunt, Senator Roy, U.S. Senator From Missouri:
Questions Submitted by......................................74, 145
Statement of................................................. 2, 90
Catholic Relief Services, Prepared Statement of.................. 191
Cochran, Norris, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Budget,
Department of Health and Human Services........................ 89
Collins, Senator Susan M., U.S. Senator From Maine, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 78
Colorado:
River:
Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement of the.. 194
Board of California, Prepared Statement of the........... 196
State University, Prepared Statement of...................... 197
Copperhead Hill Ranch--John A. and Karen M. Buchanan, Owners,
Prepared Statement of.......................................... 198
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Prepared Statement of the............ 199
Farmers Market Coalition, Prepared Statement of the.............. 201
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 203
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 134
Florida Home Partnership, Inc., Prepared Statement of............ 202
Fong, Hon. Phyllis K., Inspector General, Office of Inspector
General, Department of Agriculture, Prepared Statement of...... 153
Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville, Inc., Prepared
Statement of................................................... 204
Glauber, Joseph, Chief Economist, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 1
Global Health Technologies Coalition, Prepared Statement of the.. 206
Hamburg, Dr. Margaret, Commissioner, Food and Drug
Administration, Department of Health and Human Services........ 89
Prepared Statement of........................................ 94
Questions Submitted to....................................... 123
Statement of................................................. 91
Harkin, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From Iowa, Questions Submitted
by............................................................. 77
Hoeven, Senator John, U.S. Senator From North Dakota, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 157
Housing Development Alliance, Inc., Prepared Statement of the.... 209
Hunger Task Force, Prepared Statement of the..................... 210
Izaak Walton League of America, Prepared Statement of the........ 212
Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 82
Kohl, Senator Herb, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin:
Opening Statements of........................................ 1, 89
Questions Submitted by......................................60, 123
Lautenberg, Senator Frank R., U.S. Senator From New Jersey,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 157
Little Dixie Community Action Agency, Inc., Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 213
Lummi Nation, Prepared Statement of the.......................... 214
Massachusetts Vegetable & Flower Grower, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 216
McGarey, Patrick, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Budget, Food
and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human
Services....................................................... 89
Merrigan, Kathleen, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 1
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 218
Moran, Senator Jerry, U.S. Senator From Kansas, Questions
Submitted by..................................................82, 149
National:
Association of:
County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), Prepared
Statement of the....................................... 219
State Energy Officials (NASEO), Prepared Statement of the 221
Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association (NCSFPA),
Prepared Statement of the.................................. 221
Organic Coalition (NOC), Prepared Statement of the........... 223
Rural Housing Coalition (NRHC), Prepared Statement of the.... 226
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), Prepared Statement
of the..................................................... 228
Northwest Regional Housing Authority, Prepared Statement of the.. 232
Oregon Water Resources Congress, Prepared Statement of the....... 232
Organic Farming Research Foundation, Prepared Statement of the... 234
Pickle Packers International, Inc., Prepared Statement of........ 236
Pryor, Senator Mark, U.S. Senator From Arkansas, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 84
Rural:
Coalition/Coalicion Rural, et. al, Letter From the........... 241
Housing Development Corporation, Prepared Statement of the... 244
School Nutrition Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 247
Self-Help:
Enterprises, Prepared Statement of the....................... 245
Housing Corporation of Hawaii, Prepared Statement of the..... 247
Society for Women's Health Research, Prepared Statement of the... 249
Strom, Leland A., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Farm
Credit Administration, Prepared Statement of................... 158
The:
Humane Society of the United States, Prepared Statement of... 251
Equine Protection, Prepared Statement of................. 255
Wildlife Society, Prepared Statement of...................... 257
USA Rice Federation, Letter From the............................. 259
Vilsack, Hon. Thomas, Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 5
Summary Statement of......................................... 3
Wisconsin Walnut Council, Prepared Statement of the.............. 260
Wyoming State Engineer's Office, Letter From the................. 261
Young, Michael, Budget Officer, Office of Budget and Program
Analysis, Department of Agriculture............................ 1
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of Inspector General
Goal 1: Strengthen USDA's Safety and Security Measures for Public
Health......................................................... 154
Goal 2: Strengthening Program Integrity and Improving Benefit
Delivery....................................................... 155
Goal 3: OIG Work in Support of Management Initiatives............ 156
Goal 4: Improving USDA's Stewardship of Natural Resources........ 157
Office of Inspector General's (OIG's):
Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request.............................. 157
Oversight of Recovery Act Programs........................... 153
Office of the Secretary
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 60
Agricultural:
Marketing Service (AMS)...................................... 66
Research.....................................................41, 42
Facilities............................................... 21
Service.................................................. 62
Fiscal Year 2012 Funding............................. 84
Grazing Research..................................... 40
Lab Closures.........................................39, 75
Program Reallocation................................. 80
Agriculture Research Funding..................................... 36
Animal:
And Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).................. 63
Funding and Staffing..................................... 28
Welfare...................................................... 64
Beginning Farmers................................................ 22
Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS).......................... 65
Blender Pumps.................................................... 26
Blueprint for Stronger Service...............................18, 34, 41
Broadband:
Access....................................................... 22
Program Rule................................................. 30
Budget Impact of:
Competitive Standards Rule................................... 77
School Meals Regulations..................................... 76
Capital Asset and Construction Plan.............................. 75
Catfish Inspection............................................... 86
Program...................................................... 24
Civil Rights.....................................................42, 72
Closing Costs of Research Laboratories........................... 76
Community Facilities............................................. 70
Competitive Food Rule............................................ 82
Conservation..................................................... 66
Programs..................................................... 24
Country of Origin Labeling....................................... 83
Crop Insurance................................................... 38
Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center......................... 85
Delta Obesity Prevention Unit.................................... 86
Diversity of Rural Electric Programs............................. 74
Extramural Research.............................................. 75
Farm Service Agency (FSA):
Information Technology (IT).................................. 15
Office:
Closures................................................. 86
Consolidation....................................17, 18, 33, 35
Criteria............................................. 17
Field Office Closings............................................ 60
Food:
For Peace Title II Grants.................................... 27
Safety....................................................... 78
And Inspection Service (FSIS)............................ 60
Poultry Inspection................................... 12
Free Trade Agreements With Colombia and Panama................... 74
House Budget Resolution.......................................... 83
Housing.......................................................... 69
International Food Assistance.................................... 27
Lacey Act........................................................ 65
Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB).........................20, 21, 77, 79
National:
Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Crop Protection
Program.................................................... 80
School Lunch Program......................................... 79
Non-O157......................................................... 61
Northeast Regional Agricultural Research......................... 81
Nutrition........................................................ 71
Programs Fraud Detection..................................... 14
Office Closures.................................................. 82
Pesticide Recordkeeping Program.................................. 66
Research Lab Closures............................................ 31
Rural:
Development..................................................36, 68
Jobs Accelerator............................................. 70
Streamline:
Decisions for Genetically Engineered Plants.................. 28
Veterinary Biologics Licensing Process....................... 29
Sun Grant Initiative............................................. 83
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP):
Contingency Fund............................................. 11
Program Integrity............................................ 11
Universal Service Fund (USF).....................................19, 20
Water Bank Program............................................... 25
Watershed Rehabilitation Program................................. 23
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program....................... 25
Funding...................................................... 11
Increases in California...................................... 13
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Additional Committee Questions................................... 123
Addressing Drug Shortages........................................ 143
Animal Antibiotics............................................... 148
Antibiotics...................................................... 136
Animal....................................................... 148
Livestock.................................................... 110
Antimicrobial Resistance......................................... 143
Arsenic in Chicken Studies....................................... 135
Artificial Pancreas.............................................. 119
Biosimilars...................................................... 140
User Fee Program............................................. 139
Blood Platelets.................................................. 131
Budget:
Fiscal Year 2013............................................. 92
Request...................................................... 93
China............................................................ 104
Import Initiative............................................ 125
Cosmetics......................................................103, 128
Courier.......................................................... 128
Definition of Valid Prescription................................. 137
Devices and Diagnostics.......................................... 141
Drug:
Approvals.................................................... 92
Labeling During Pregnancy.................................... 128
Shortages..................................................117, 126
Enforcement...................................................... 109
Facilities....................................................... 115
Fiscal Year 2013 Budget.......................................... 92
Food:
And Drug Administration (FDA):
Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request.......................... 97
Investments and Results.................................. 94
Contact Notification (FCN) User Fee.......................... 128
Safety.....................................................123, 136
Modernization Act (FSMA).......................92, 93, 101, 136
Foods and Veterinary Medicine (FVM) Program...................... 128
Foreign Importer................................................. 109
Generics......................................................... 102
Globalization.................................................... 92
Imported Drugs................................................... 108
Information Technology (IT)...................................... 120
Progress..................................................... 121
Internal Efficiencies............................................ 147
KV Pharmaceutical................................................ 107
Lab Funding...................................................... 127
Life Sciences-Biodefense Laboratory.............................93, 122
Maximizing the Impact of FDA Funds............................... 96
Medical:
Countermeasures (MCMs).................................93, 122, 124
Product Reinspection......................................... 127
Research..................................................... 147
Menu:
Boards....................................................... 106
Labeling..............................................105, 142, 144
Nano............................................................. 115
National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR)................ 115
Collaboration................................................ 116
Nutrition Labeling............................................... 113
Standards.................................................... 139
Premarket Approval (PMA)......................................... 120
Preparing FDA for the Challenges Ahead........................... 96
Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (PDUFA)............ 127
Rare and Neglected Diseases...................................... 131
Registry of Legitimate Online Pharmacies......................... 137
Reinspection Fee................................................. 103
Repackaging...................................................... 109
Seafood:
Consumption During Pregnancy................................. 129
Safety....................................................... 130
User Fees.......................................................93, 127
FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION
Condition of the Farm Credit System (FCS)........................ 160
Examination Programs for Farm Credit System Banks and
Associations................................................... 159
Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (FAMC)................. 161
Mission of the Farm Credit Administration (FCA).................. 158
Regulatory and Corporate Activities.............................. 160
-