[Senate Hearing 113-877]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-877
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 4800/S. 2389
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2015, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Agriculture
Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Nondepartmental Witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
24-504 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, Chairwoman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Vice
TOM HARKIN, Iowa Chairman
PATTY MURRAY, Washington THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
JACK REED, Rhode Island LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas MARK KIRK, Illinois
JON TESTER, Montana DANIEL COATS, Indiana
TOM UDALL, New Mexico ROY BLUNT, Missouri
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
Charles E. Kieffer, Staff Director
William D. Duhnke III, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas, Chairman
TOM HARKIN, Iowa ROY BLUNT, Missouri
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
JON TESTER, Montana SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
(ex officio) (ex officio)
Professional Staff
Jessica Arden Schulken
Dianne Nellor
Eve Goldsher
Stacy McBride (Minority)
Carlisle Clarke (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Page
Department of Agriculture........................................ 1
Material Submitted Subsequent to the Hearing................. 79
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug
Administration................................................. 85
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 117
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m. in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark L. Pryor (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Pryor, Johnson, Tester, Blunt, and Moran.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM VILSACK, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DR. JOSEPH GLAUBER, CHIEF ECONOMIST
MICHAEL YOUNG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS
opening statement of senator mark l. pryor
Senator Pryor. I'll go ahead and call the subcommittee to
order.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here and all
of our Senators.
Let me start with an announcement. The floor has announced
that they're going to have votes, probably a series of votes,
starting at 11. And so, consequently, I'll talk to the ranking
member here and also to the Secretary's office about trying to
shorten our opening statements and trying to get right into
questions and ask as many questions as possible. And then, if
all goes well, we'll probably adjourn around 11:10 or 11:15,
depending on the flow of the meeting. But, if we didn't have a
series, we might try to come back. But I think, with a series,
it will be hard to get Senators to come back.
So again, I want to welcome everyone for being here and
especially, Secretary Vilsack. He's accompanied by Dr. Joseph
Glauber and Mr. Michael Young. And thank you all for your
testimony and your preparation.
Mr. Secretary, we've had several very productive
conversations. I appreciate that. Always appreciate working
with you and your team over there. Obviously, our farmers face
a lot of challenges. You have a new farm bill. There's a lot
going on in your world and a lot of really good things and some
real challenges. So we acknowledge that.
And I just want to say that there are some things in your
proposed budget that I really like and I'm really encouraged
by. And then, I have a lot of questions about other matters and
we'll try to get into those. And, as always, we will leave the
record open for a couple of weeks and allow Senators to submit
questions because we are on this abbreviated schedule today.
So again, I want to welcome you to the subcommittee. And
with that, what I'll do is turn it over to my very fine ranking
member here, Senator Blunt of Missouri, who always shows great
leadership and asks great questions.
So Senator Blunt.
statement of senator roy blunt
Senator Blunt. Well, thank you, Chairman Pryor. And thanks
for your leadership on the committee. We've had a great
opportunity to work together on this committee for a while now
and it's been a real labor of accomplishment, I think, as we
try to work to help this important sector in our economy.
Secretary Vilsack, glad you're here; Dr. Glauber and Mr.
Young. And look forward to the chance we have to ask some
questions. Clearly, we're wanting to talk about the priorities
and the requests in your budget.
Agriculture is one of the brightest spots in our economy
right now. The challenges ahead of us, I think, are also great
opportunities as we see world food needs anticipated to double
by 2060 or 2070. American farmers and American agribusinesses
are going to be an important part of that and what we do to get
ready for that in terms of research and then other committee
work; infrastructure and other things, that allow that to
happen. Very important.
Clearly, while it's been a bright spot, the agriculture
community hasn't been without challenges; the drought we've
seen happen. The fact, though, that we had our farm families
waiting for too long, in probably all of our opinions in this
room today, for a farm bill. And now, the importance of your
Department quickly implementing that farm bill and the
livestock disaster relief programs that had run out. And now,
we're trying to go back and catch up with that means, I think,
it's particularly important to do that. But I'm glad that's
among your priorities. We want it to be among your top
priorities.
In terms of the Farm Service offices that really are the
touchpoint for farm families with the Federal programs and
Federal assistance and Federal research and Federal
information, it's important that those work well. Clearly, the
Government is in a position where we need to be looking at what
the private sector has done more effectively than the Federal
Government has to deliver services and figure out the best way
to do that. I know that's one of the things you're looking at.
I'm hopeful, as we figure out how to deliver those services
better, that is in every way possible. We do that based on a
real specific analysis of where the work is, where the farm
families are, how we bring those two things together.
I know Senator Pryor and I and our colleagues, all want to
get the maximum opportunity to take advantage of your time here
today.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
And, Secretary Vilsack, thank you.
summary statement of hon. tom vilsack
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Blunt, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the
opportunity to meet with you this morning. Under President
Obama's leadership, the United States has reached historic
levels of investment in rural communities. With this investment
the agriculture sector has seen strong growth, with farm income
and agriculture exports both reaching highs not witnessed in
decades. Net farm income and net cash incomes after adjusting
for inflation are at near record levels. Since the President
took office, agriculture exports have had the strongest 5-year
period of growth in our Nation's history, and set a new record
in calendar year 2013 at $144.1 billion. A strong agriculture
sector is key to strong rural communities, supporting 9.2
percent of jobs in the economy.
Although the recent agriculture census reports that we have
had a strong agricultural economy, we continue to face some
significant challenges. There is a significant rural component
to poverty in America. Eighty-five percent of the Nation's
poorest counties are rural, and per capita income in rural
America lags behind that in urban areas. Further, populations
in rural areas are dropping as a lack of new jobs is driving
young people away. We continue to see a trend of fewer farmers
and aging farmers. In addition, rural communities face more
complex challenges today because of climate change, which comes
with a hefty price tag. Drought alone was estimated to cost the
United States $50 billion from 2011 to 2013. The fire season is
significantly longer than it was 3 decades ago. These risks
have implications not only for agricultural producers, but for
all Americans.
We must continue our efforts to build on our success and
advance new ideas to address the challenges that rural America
continues to confront. In the budget we talk about individual
line items, individual programs, but we don't look at the
totality of what a budget does and its impact on the people in
rural America and the farm communities and in this country. So
what I'd like to do is discuss Results and Reforms,
Opportunities and Innovation; the ROI of this budget.
Let me start with results. This is a litany of numbers but
the reality is behind each number there's an individual whose
life is impacted by what we do at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA). Forty thousand farmers will receive
assistance in the form of credit; 85 percent of those farmers
will be beginning farmers and socially disadvantaged farmers.
This budget will provide coverage, crop insurance coverage, for
$63 billion in crops. It will adequately fund our Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to ensure the
protection of $165 billion of value in terms of livestock, and
specialty crops and plants that APHIS is responsible for.
We will be focused on ensuring that we continue record
activity in trade. We're looking at, potentially, another
record year of agricultural trade which supports not only
stable farm income but also a million jobs here at home. An
opportunity for us to also provide help and assistance to young
people overseas with our McGovern-Dole Program, helping to feed
nearly 4 million youngsters.
Forty-seven million Americans will receive benefits under
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); 8.7
million women, infant and children will benefit from the
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC). Thirty million children, 20 million of whom are
on free and reduced lunch, youngsters will receive benefits
under a school lunch program; 14 million will receive benefits
under a school breakfast program; and our summer feeding
program will help support 3.3 million young people.
In addition, our food safety folks will continue to focus
on reducing foodborne illness, and we estimate and expect with
this budget that we can reduce the number of foodborne illness
in the areas that we inspect by 52,000, which is in addition of
an 11-percent reduction from last year.
In addition, we'll continue our work in conservation.
Twenty-three million additional acres added to the record
number of acres that are currently enrolled in conservation;
helping nearly half a million producers in this country do a
better job of land stewardship and water stewardship. This
budget will also allow us to continue an effort in the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), with 25 million acres.
We will be focused on rural development. Forty thousand
jobs will be created or retained with this budget. One hundred
and forty thousand families and businesses will receive
expanded broadband access; 2.2 million families will benefit
from cleaner water in communities that receive water projects.
One hundred and sixty-three thousand folks will receive a
single-family loan to allow them to have homeownership; 285,000
will receive assistance in the form of rental assistance in
rural communities; 4.6 million Americans will receive the
benefit of improved electric service as a result of this budget
and over 13 million Americans will see improved community
facilities through the Rural Development component of this
budget.
In addition, we will continue a commitment, a strong
commitment, to research in nearly 100 facilities. Eight hundred
research projects will continue to provide innovation that has
spawned 215 patents in the last 5 years and helps to support
383 licensing agreements that lead to small business
development.
So on total, a substantial number of folks get impacted by
this budget. This budget is also focused on reform since it's a
half a billion dollars less than it was when I became
Secretary. We're focused on model service agencies for our farm
service efforts; reforming the way in which we pay for forest
fires, focusing on a space survey to try and do a better job of
using space here in the Capital area; and rental assistance,
helping to right size our rental systems' portfolio.
In the form of opportunities, we're going to continue to
expand local and regional food systems because that is an
opportunity for us to expand small and mid-size farming
operations which is a concern that I have and I'm sure you do.
We will also continue to focus on the bio-based product
manufacturing opportunity in rural America to create jobs and
additional farm income.
On innovation, we're excited about the innovation
institutes that we're proposing for pollinators, for
antimicrobial resistance and also for bio-product
manufacturing. We're also focused on a new poultry facility
that will take a look at how we might be able to combat
diseases in terms of our important poultry industry.
So I look forward to answering the questions of this
committee but I think it's important sometimes to focus on the
overall results of a budget because many, many people get
impacted positively by our efforts.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas J. 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 2015 budget. I am joined
today by Joseph Glauber, USDA's Chief Economist, and Michael Young,
USDA's Budget Officer.
Under President Obama's leadership, the United States has reached
historic levels of investment in rural communities. With this, the
agriculture sector has seen strong growth, with farm income and
agriculture exports both reaching highs not witnessed in decades. Net
farm income and net cash incomes after adjusting for inflation are at
near record levels. Since the President took office, agriculture
exports have had the strongest 5-year period of growth in our Nation's
history, and set a new record in calendar year 2013 at $144.1 billion.
A strong agriculture sector is key to strong rural communities,
supporting 9.2 percent of jobs in the economy.
Although the recent agriculture census reports that we have had a
strong agricultural economy, we continue to face some significant
challenges. There is a significant rural component to poverty in
America. Eighty-five percent of the Nation's poorest counties are
rural, and per capita income in rural America lags behind that in urban
areas. Further, populations in rural areas are dropping as a lack of
new jobs is driving young people away. We continue to observe the trend
of fewer farmers and aging farmers. In addition, rural communities face
more complex challenges today because of climate change, which comes
with a hefty price tag. Drought alone was estimated to cost the United
States $50 billion from 2011 to 2013. The fire season is significantly
longer than it was 3 decades ago. Such risks have implications not only
for agricultural producers, but for all Americans.
We must continue our efforts to build on our success and advance
new ideas to address the challenges that rural America continues to
confront. The budget before you today delivers on the President's
commitment to provide results, expand opportunity for all Americans,
invest in innovation, and make reforms aimed at improving services and
fiscal responsibility.
USDA has made a concerted effort to deliver results for the
American people, even under the constrained budget mandated by the
Budget Control Act. USDA has made substantial, year-over-year gains in
expanding credit opportunities for farmers and ranchers. We expanded
crop insurance to more than 400 crop types, saved millions of dollars
and provided risk management opportunities to specialty crops and
organic crops. We have supported small businesses by providing job
training, business development opportunities, strategic community
planning and other resources. As I mentioned earlier, we helped boost
exports to a record level by breaking down trade barriers and promoting
U.S. agricultural products.
USDA housing programs have been successful at keeping rural
residents in their homes by allowing current borrowers to take
advantage of historically low interest rates. Since 2009, USDA has
helped more than 804,000 rural families buy, refinance, or repair a
home. We did this while gaining efficiencies in the programs and
increasing the fees making the guarantee program less costly to the
taxpayers.
We are proud of our record to support increased demand for
renewable fuels. USDA has invested in the creation of advanced
biorefineries across the Nation; developed a unique partnership with
the U.S. Navy and Department of Energy to procure new biofuels for
marine and aviation use; and boosted markets for nearly 3,000 U.S.
companies that are producing biobased products from homegrown
materials. USDA has provided financial assistance to farmers, ranchers
and rural small businesses to purchase and install renewable energy
systems and make energy-efficiency improvements that have created or
saved an estimated 9.2 billion kWh of electricity since 2009. USDA also
has entered into unique public-private sector partnerships to expand
wood energy use, which will help improve the safety and health of our
Nation's forests and support job creating renewable energy production.
USDA's conservation efforts have helped us mitigate the negative
impacts of the drought and are helping producers to manage climate
change. USDA has enrolled a record number of acres in conservation
programs that have saved millions of tons of soil and improved water
quality and have contributed to the national effort to preserve habitat
for wildlife and protect the most sensitive ecological areas. USDA has
partnered with more than 500,000 farmers, ranchers and landowners on
these conservation projects since 2009--a record number. In addition to
protecting cropland and critical habitats, conservation strengthens
outdoor recreation, which adds more than $640 billion every year to our
economy. Building on these efforts, the administration entered into a
historic agreement with Minnesota to develop programs for farmers
designed to increase the voluntary adoption of conservation practices
by giving them regulatory certainty that they will not be asked to take
additional conservation actions over the life of the agreement. We are
working with other States to expand the use of these agreements.
In the face of drought and the increasing threat of wildfires, I
recently announced the first ever Regional Hubs for Risk Adaptation and
Mitigation to Climate Change. These climate hubs will address
increasing risks such as fires, invasive pests, devastating floods, and
crippling droughts on a regional basis, aiming to translate science and
research into information to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners
on ways to adapt and adjust their resource management. In support of
the President's goal to find lasting conservation solutions for some of
the most challenging problems, USDA has undertaken a range of
innovative new landscape-scale initiatives aimed at restoring land and
water. More than 1.6 million acres have been enrolled in landscape
scale initiatives in an ``all lands'' strategy for enhancing water
resources.
The Department has also helped a record number of people in need by
ensuring that they have access to sufficient food and a healthful diet.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) helps millions of
low-income Americans put food on the table, more than half of whom are
children, the elderly or people with disabilities. The cornerstone of
the nutrition assistance safety net, SNAP kept nearly 5 million people,
including 2.2 million children, out of poverty in 2012. This
administration has achieved historically high payment accuracy rates in
SNAP, among the best in the Federal Government, and the budget includes
additional investments in SNAP program integrity.
USDA continues to improve and enhance the school food environment
such as providing performance-based increases of 6 cents per lunch for
schools meeting the new meal standards, the first real increase in 30
years. We have published new standards for snack foods in schools that
preserve flexibility for time-honored traditions like fundraisers and
bake sales, and provide ample transition time for schools. We have also
issued a final rule to allow food packages for the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) to better
reflect current nutrition science and dietary recommendations, support
breastfeeding, provide participants with more variety of foods, and
provide WIC State agencies with greater flexibility in prescribing food
packages to accommodate participants with cultural food preferences. To
increase access to nutritious food, we have increased the number of
farmers markets and made it easier to use SNAP electronic benefits
transfer (EBT) cards at those markets and facilitated direct farm-to-
school marketing of fresh fruits and vegetables.
Food for Progress and the McGovern-Dole International Food for
Education and Child Nutrition Program provided benefits to more than
10.5 million people overseas in 2013, a record number. Also, following
upon the positive reforms enacted in 2014 that mainly address
development food aid, the administration is seeking to enable Public
Law 480 title II to reach 2 million more people in emergency crises
within the same resources and with more timely responses. These reforms
provide a more agile and modern approach to global food assistance,
pairing the continued purchase of the best of American agriculture with
the flexibility of interventions such as increased local and regional
purchase, cash transfers, and electronic vouchers. The budget proposes
the authority to use up to 25 percent of title II resources for these
types of flexible emergency interventions that have proven to be so
critical to effective responses in complex and logistically difficult
emergencies such as Syria and Typhoon Haiyan.
Within the President's Feed the Future initiative to enhance longer
term food security, we are also working with developing countries to
facilitate the adoption of emerging technologies that hold the promise
of improving agricultural productivity by creating crops that better
tolerate drought, toxicity, disease, pests and salinity. These efforts
contribute to economic growth and food security.
We have been implementing a series of policies aimed at preventing
foodborne illnesses before they happen by targeting and eliminating
contaminated products before they come to market. For example, in
fiscal year 2011, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
implemented stricter Salmonella and Campylobacter performance standards
to reduce these pathogens in turkeys and young chickens. In fiscal year
2012, FSIS began testing raw beef products for six additional strains
of shiga-toxin producing E. coli and prohibiting any product found
positive from entering commerce, consistent with FSIS testing and
policies for E. coli O157:H7. In fiscal year 2013, FSIS redesigned its
sampling program to improve detection of E. coli O157:H7 in regulated
products to further protect the public from foodborne hazards. We also
took the common sense action to hold any product being tested for
adulterant until the test results are received. FSIS began a new
program to test comminuted chicken and turkey products for Salmonella
and Campylobacter. FSIS intends to develop new performance standards
for comminuted products based on the results of this testing and risk
assessment analysis. In December, 2013, FSIS announced its Salmonella
Action Plan which outlines additional steps the Agency intends to take
to address Salmonella, including developing Salmonella performance
standards for chicken parts based on FSIS baseline results. FSIS has
seen declines in the total number of illnesses attributed to FSIS-
regulated products--between fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2013, the
total number of such illnesses fell 13 percent, which equates to about
64,000 illnesses over the 2-year period.
With passage of the farm bill, we have a great opportunity to build
upon these results by bringing an enhanced array of authorities and
resources needed to address the on-going challenges faced by rural
America and provide a foundation to help rural communities prosper,
enhance the resiliency of forests and private working lands and ensure
access to a safe, diverse and nutritious food supply. It restores
disaster assistance and invests in programs to help beginning, small
and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. Our communities will
have additional resources and new tools to take advantage of new
economic opportunities and create jobs. It provides access to
nutritious food to those that need it. The potential of new products,
production methods, and discoveries will be strengthened through new
agricultural research. Renewed conservation efforts will protect our
natural resources and create new tourism options. The farm bill will
support the next generation of farmers and ranchers, while achieving
meaningful reform and billions of dollars in savings. USDA's dedicated
employees are hard at work to implement the bill effectively and
expeditiously.
The President's 2015 USDA budget proposal builds on the farm bill
and focuses on creating jobs and building a foundation for future
economic growth within the constrained levels of funding. Three months
ago, through the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA), Congress came
together on a bipartisan basis and took an important first step toward
replacing the damaging cuts caused by sequestration with longer term
reforms. Recognizing the importance of the 2-year budget agreement
Congress reached in December, the President's budget adheres to the
BBA's discretionary funding levels for 2015.
USDA's total budget for 2015 we are proposing before this
subcommittee is $141.4 billion, of which approximately $122.4 billion
is mandatory funding. The majority of these funds support crop
insurance, nutrition assistance programs, farm commodity and trade
programs and a number of conservation programs. The budget includes
funds to fully support estimated participation levels for SNAP and
Child Nutrition Programs.
For discretionary programs of interest to this subcommittee, our
budget proposes $19 billion, approximately $242 million below the 2014
enacted level. That level fully funds expected participation in WIC. It
includes the funding needed to meet our responsibility for providing
inspection services to the Nation's meat and poultry establishments.
The budget also includes over $1 billion to renew approximately 243,000
outstanding contracts for rental assistance. We appreciate the
subcommittee's on-going support for this program. For 2015, we are
proposing changes to the operation of the Rental Assistance Program to
ensure its long-term viability.
The budget creates new opportunities and continues to give a
priority to spurring investment in rural businesses that want to take
advantage of emerging markets. The 2015 budget reproposes the
consolidation of several rural development programs into an economic
development grant program designed to assist small and emerging private
businesses and cooperatives in rural areas with populations of 50,000
or less. This program is needed to improve our ability to leverage
private sector resources aimed at developing regional economies. The
budget would also give rural businesses more access to capital by
shifting funding from traditional loan programs to venture capital type
funding that offers a more diverse array of financial products. The
2015 budget supports loans and grants programs that aid in the
development of food retailers in urban and rural food deserts and food
hubs for locally and regionally produced products, including dedicated
funding for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative authorized in the
recent farm bill. We double grant funding to increase broadband access
in the rural communities that are least likely to have broadband
infrastructure needed for economic development.
We understand the new opportunities in rural America that the
biobased economy provides. In addition to the mandatory funding
provided by the 2014 farm bill, discretionary funding is requested for
the Rural Energy for America Program to provide financing for the
purchase of renewable energy systems. We also propose $1 billion to
support environmental upgrades to existing fossil fuel electric
generation facilities and target electric funding to supporting
renewable energy projects to significantly reduce carbon emissions.
The budget request also meets the growing demand for farm credit
with sufficient funding to serve over 40,000 producers in 2015 seeking
to finance operating expenses, to acquire a farm, or keep an existing
one. Approximately 85 percent of the funding will be targeted to new
and beginning farmers and ranchers, including our Nation's veterans, so
that we can ensure that our country's next generation of growers and
producers get off to a good start.
The budget supports our continuing efforts to improve access to
nutritious foods and promote healthy diets. In 2013, USDA and its
partners well exceeded our goal to provide 5 million additional meals
than in 2012 to eligible low-income children through summer meal
programs. Although encouraging, there are more than 21 million such
children participating in school meal programs and fewer than 3 million
who receive Summer Food Service Program meals when school is not in
session, which indicates many kids may not be getting adequate
nutrition during the summer. A key investment in 2015 is $30 million
for summer food EBT demonstration projects, which test the extent to
which providing extra benefits through SNAP and WIC EBT over the summer
for households with school-aged children reduces food insecurity. The
summer EBT pilots funded by this Committee in 2010 are showing real
promise in reducing hunger and improving nutrition, and the budget
proposes to build on that success. The budget also requests additional
funding for school equipment grants, to help our schools prepare and
serve healthy meals.
The 2015 budget makes strategic investments that further innovation
and encourage creative approaches to solving rural America's most
pressing challenges. Our budget emphasizes research that will tackle
major, crosscutting issues facing farmers, including food safety,
renewable energy, climate change and pollinator health, and offer
genetic resources and tools to increase agricultural resiliency and
enhance food production. The 2015 budget includes a significant
investment for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). We
are also proposing the creation of three Innovation Institutes, public-
private partnerships that will focus on emerging challenges to
agriculture. These institutes will address the decline of pollinator
health, bio-manufacturing and bioproducts development, and anti-
microbial resistance research. In addition to the institute for
pollinator health, the President's budget requests an additional $20
million in USDA's budget for a multi-agency initiative to respond to
the urgent problem of the decline of pollinator populations. USDA's
activities will be coordinated with other departments. The budget also
includes funding to begin the planning and design of the 2017 Census of
Agriculture.
Because the BBA levels are not sufficient to expand opportunity to
all Americans or to drive the growth our economy needs, the President's
2015 budget includes a separate, fully paid for $56 billion
Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative. The initiative identifies
additional discretionary investments that can spur economic progress,
promote opportunity, and strengthen national security. For USDA, the
initiative includes $155 million to design and construct facilities to
replace the outmoded Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory in Athens,
Georgia. An additional $60 million is included for AFRI, as well as an
additional $20 million for formula research grant programs that would
be available on a competitive basis. Finally, as part of the Climate
Resilience Fund, $100 million would be provided through the Natural
Resources Conservation Service to enhance support for private
landowners to manage landscape and watershed planning for increased
resilience and risk reduction.
The President's budget proposal includes reforms needed to meet
tight discretionary caps, while ensuring that USDA's millions of
customers across rural America receive stronger service. These include
efforts to reduce administrative costs, streamline operations, and
improve program integrity. Since 2010, USDA has implemented numerous
measures to increase efficiency and reduce spending to absorb
uncontrollable costs and manage significant reductions to discretionary
funding. We have done this by aggressively implementing our Blueprint
for Stronger Service, which has achieved almost $1.2 billion of savings
and efficiencies. We will build on these efforts in 2015 by
consolidating leased and owned office space and requesting authority to
use expired, unobligated funds to invest in facilities and other
capital needs to better manage the Department.
For 2015, we will improve our capacity to help produces and rural
communities that we serve. We will continue efforts to modernize the
farm program delivery system through a Model Service Center concept to
ensure offices are strategically located and have adequate staffing and
equipment to strengthen services to producers. Savings from the
consolidation of 250 Farm Service Agency offices would be re-invested
in the modernization effort. A Rural Corps, comprising economic
development professionals, will be placed in 10 high-need areas to
provide technical assistance and hands-on support at the local level.
This model will increase the likelihood that investments in
infrastructure and economic development are strategic, creating jobs
and long-term economic benefits within in the region.
Throughout the farm bill process, the administration has advocated
for comprehensive legislation that provides meaningful reforms. We are
pleased that many of these reforms have been adopted in the farm bill;
however, we believe further reforms are warranted to reduce the cost of
the crop insurance program. The proposals represent a balanced approach
to reducing the cost of the program, while maintaining a strong safety
net to protect producers from natural disasters and price fluctuations.
Funding for selected programs is reduced or terminated and
resources are reallocated to targeted investments in priority programs
and infrastructure to support sustainable economic growth. Further,
discretionary spending is partially offset through about $1.5 billion
of proposed limits on selected mandatory programs and other
adjustments.
Our budget is roughly $400 million less than it was when I became
Secretary in 2009. I can assure you that we have done and are doing
everything we can to make USDA a more efficient operation without
limiting service to our stakeholders. We will continue to work to be as
efficient as possible, and look to you to provide us the flexibility we
need to be able to use our resources most effectively.
At this time, I will be glad to answer questions you may have on
our budget proposals.
2014 FARM BILL
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
And as I said, you can submit your longer statement for the
record. We would be glad to take that.
Let me just jump right in, if I can, and let me start with
the new farm bill, which I know is a lot of transition, a lot
of changes and that passed, overwhelmingly, in the Senate. But,
one of the big changes is we lose the direct payments. And I
have farmers in my State and I'm sure others do in their States
about how's this new thing going to work and, you know, folks
are waiting on our regulations to come out. Do you have a sense
of the timetable about when the regs will be issued and where
we are in the process?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes, we do. We have an implementation
team that's been focused on this, actually, before the
beginning of the passage of the farm bill.
Let me say, in terms of disaster assistance which I know is
important, we expect and anticipate that by April 15, folks
will begin to apply for disaster assistance under the restored
disaster programs and hopefully checks will be forthcoming
shortly thereafter April 15.
In terms of Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss
Coverage (PLC), our focus is on providing and identifying the
land-grant universities that we will be using to get
information out, to get Web-based information to identify ways
in which extension can be triggered to be able to get the
message out about what these programs will be. We hope to be
able to give farmers the ability to update their productivity
and production records sometime in the late part of this
summer. Early fall, they should get a sense of where we are in
terms of what the regulations are liable to be in the elections
that they have to make. And then, we hope by the end of this
year, they'll be in a position to make elections and be able to
be informed about them.
I would say that wheat is a challenge for us because they
will have to make elections and decisions concerning crop
insurance before they make the ARC or PLC decision. What we
will do with wheat is give wheat producers the opportunity to
change the election that they've made in terms of crop
insurance if they determine ARC is the best deal for their
operation but they've already signed up for supplemental
coverage options; you can't have both. We'll give them an
opportunity to sort of rescind that without penalty.
Senator Pryor. Well, will the USDA and/or your partners
like, for example, universities have things like workshops and,
you know, listening sessions, things like that?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes. And that's part of the farm bill--
provided several million dollars to assist in the outreach
effort. That's why we're developing educational and training
tools. So there will be an extensive outreach effort.
FSA OFFICE CLOSURES
Senator Pryor. And one of the changes that's in your budget
is that--I see a proposal to do a, I guess I would say, a
realignment of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) offices in which
it would probably result in quite a number of closures. But, at
the same time, you know, we don't really know where those would
be. And, could you just walk the subcommittee through that,
please?
Secretary Vilsack. I think it's important to put this in
context, Mr. Chairman.
Our FSA budget has been hit pretty hard over the last
several years and the result is we've reduced our workforce by
20 percent. In addition, we are instituting technology changes
which should improve the way in which we do our work and should
save time for our staff.
So what we would like to be able to do is, during the
course of this calendar year, really focus on where the work
is. As Senator Blunt suggested, we need to make sure that as we
make decisions about a realignment of our Farm Service offices,
and a modernization of them, that we actually match-up where
the work actually is.
So we would like to do sort of a work study to identify
where the work is, where the farm families are, and then
suggest three types of offices in the future. Basically, a
central office that would have a supervisor and at least three
or more employees; a branch office that would not have
supervisory personnel but would have at least three employees.
And then, a series of satellite offices where people would be
able to obtain information by appointment. We'd like to propose
that alignment and, when we do, we suspect that that will
probably focus our attention on readjusting workforce so that
we have adequate numbers of people to provide the services that
folks expect.
I would say that we're also very focused on making sure
that we expand the opportunities for Farm Service Agency
offices to provide additional information above and beyond what
they traditionally do. So part of this modernization effort is
really designed to make them a one-stop shop for farmers who
are looking for information about Rural Development programs,
how they might enter into the local and regional food system
opportunity, how they might take advantage of conservation
programs, and have the Farm Service Agency offices act as a
bridge or connector with those other opportunities.
So we aren't expecting and anticipating any closures in
calendar year 2014. We are going to do this work study. I would
say that there are roughly 30 offices that have no full-time
employees today. There are 111 offices that have one employee
within 20 miles of another office. So I think it is time for us
to take a look at how we restructure and modernize the system.
Senator Pryor. Okay, thank you.
Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. And, based on that last answer, Secretary,
so would I be right in assuming that your 250 number is an
estimate of where you think you wind up?
Secretary Vilsack. That's correct.
Senator Blunt. So, you're going to do a study of where the
work is and how those offices lay out and then we'll have
access to that information as you do?
Secretary Vilsack. That's correct.
And we would follow the prescriptions of notices and
hearings and things of that nature if we make decisions in
terms of office closures. I would also point out that this is
not about saving money. This is about redirecting resources and
shoring up the system and modernizing the system.
Senator Blunt. Well, thank you for that. And I look forward
to that information being available to us.
MILK INCOME LOSS CONTRACT PROGRAM
On the new farm bill, you know, one of the last issues, as
is always the case with the farm bill, it seems to me to be
resolved, was the dairy program and we move from a contract
loss program, the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program now,
to more of an insurance program. I think MILC lasts until
September. My question is are you going to have the new program
in place by September and what are you doing to ensure that
that program is in place?
Secretary Vilsack. The answer to your question is yes, we
will.
And the reason, and we're confident in this, is we have
this implementation system in place. And we have teams of folks
looking at each title of the farm bill, prioritizing what needs
to be done and in what order. Then we have a convening team
that's looking at the totality of the farm bill and
reprioritizing all of the various steps that have to be taken.
There are over 480 steps and rules, regulations, guidance,
and policy changes that have to be impacted as a result of this
900-page bill, and we have prioritized them. We understand and
appreciate the dairy section as a very important priority, as
is the disaster assistance, as is the other safety net
programs. So our focus and attention is going to be on making
sure those are in place this fall.
DISASTER ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
Senator Blunt. And, in your testimony, you said that the
disaster assistance checks for the period that wasn't covered
that now is, you'd hope to have those issued in the next month?
Secretary Vilsack. No. What we hope to be able to do is
allow folks to make application for assistance by April 15.
Senator Blunt. By April 15?
Secretary Vilsack. That's correct. I've checked with that
yesterday. We are on track to do that and we're very confident
we'll meet that April 15 deadline. That is historically quick.
It usually takes 6 to 8 months to reinstitute programs of that
nature; we're going to do it in 60 days.
MODERNIZE AND INNOVATE THE DELIVERY OF AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS
Senator Blunt. The part of updating and upbringing the
system to where it's more serviceable is clearly the Modernize
and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems (MIDAS)
program. My understanding is that we've already appropriated
more money than it was originally anticipated that MIDAS would
cost. You want to give us a very quick sense of where you are
on that component of getting everything working in an upgraded
way?
Secretary Vilsack. We have a project manager who we've
identified who's going to take responsibility for day-to-day
management of this particular project to make sure that it
continues to proceed. By the end of this year, we're confident
producers will be able to go into a county office, any county
office in a State, and be able to access all of their records
not just for the land in that particular county but land that
is located in any other county of that State. That's going to
be a tremendous opportunity for folks to save time and more
convenience. Our challenge and our belief is that the following
year, we will have a circumstance where if you have access to
broadband you will be able to access your records and begin to
do your business with FSA offices from your kitchen table. That
is the goal.
DATA SECURITY
Senator Blunt. And where are we on being sure that nobody
else has access to your records; the whole data security
element of those records and the growing concern about that
information being available to people that it wasn't intended
to be available to?
Secretary Vilsack. We have significant safeguards built
into all of our systems at USDA to make sure that individual
identities are protected whether it's this particular effort
through MIDAS or whether it's our Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) contracting.
You know, we are very sensitive to this issue of security.
I think things will be easier because of the work that we've
done with the administrative services procedure and process
where we've saved nearly $1 billion of our cost at USDA. Part
of that has been focusing on consolidating our technology to
ensure that we have better safeguards in place.
I would also say that we are equally focused on working
with the private sector that is accumulating a substantial
amount of information. I had an opportunity to talk to Hugh
Grant, the CEO of Monsanto, yesterday. They have a very
significant and concerted effort to try to collect data and use
data to help farmers do a better job. They want to make sure
that the farmers understand that information is the farmer's
information. The farmer gets to choose how much, if any,
information gets to be used or publicized.
Senator Blunt. Do you share that information with other
Government agencies? Would USDA share that information if, for
instance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asked to
see a farmer's record?
Secretary Vilsack. We're not in the business of sharing
that information, Senator, to my knowledge. But I will tell you
that when some information was disclosed by the Environmental
Protection Agency last year, we expressed deep concern about
that and I think they took those concerns very seriously.
Senator Blunt. Now, was this information they would've
gotten from USDA that they then exposed?
Secretary Vilsack. I don't believe so. I think this is
information that they obtained through their process.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. And it looks like we're moving
right along here so we probably will have time for a second
round. So I encourage people to stay if they can.
Senator Moran.
USDA SUPPORT FOR FARMERS
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Secretary Vilsack, thank you for joining us.
Just in a broad sense, it sure seems like farmers and
ranchers face lots of challenges today from the Government and
elsewhere, from just the environment they operate in is very
challenging. And I just take this opportunity to encourage you
to continue to make sure you're always in agriculture's corner.
There's never enough champions for this way of life, and for
what we do in Kansas and Iowa, in Washington or around the
country, and I would ask you to use your expertise and your
passion for agriculture every day to weigh in, in many cases,
within this administration. We have the Environmental
Protection Agency, just a series of things, the Department of
Labor, most recently, with their decision about the definition
of a farm. And so, I hope that you will use your position as
Secretary of Agriculture to champion a way of life that matters
greatly to you and to me but to this country. It's absolutely
necessary that you do that.
LIVESTOCK DISASTER PROGRAMS
You have answered some of my questions about implementation
of the farm bill. You talked about livestock disaster programs.
And, if signup, April 15, my question is then, after that, how
soon after that could a producer expect to receive the support?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we have been saying that our goal
is to make sure that shortly thereafter they receive this
support and the assistance. Senator, I don't want to be
flippant about my answer. I'm a little bit concerned about
giving you a specific time in terms of a week or a month
because I'm not sure how many applications we're going to
receive. I suspect we're going to receive quite a few given the
nature of disasters that have occurred over the last couple of
years. But we will do everything we possibly can to get
resources to folks as fast as we can. It's why we have done,
and historically, a quick turnaround of this resumption of
these programs. So we understand how important this is. We will
move quickly.
Senator Moran. I appreciate that answer. I prefer a more
definitive one but I understand perhaps the inability to give
that and I would also remind us, in Congress, that it's our
fault that we're in this circumstance that we're in in which
there was the gap. And then, in addition to the gap, the length
of time it took for Congress to reach a conclusion on a farm
bill. So the burden lies with you, but the fault in many ways
lies with us.
LESSER PRAIRIE CHICKEN
It's expected, as you may know, I mentioned the
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
is another example, and we are facing a possible Endangered
Species Act listing of the lesser prairie chicken which is a
significant topic in our State but many States across the
country. Producers are wondering what to do with their CRP
contracts.
Have you been working with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
on addressing what happens to CRP if there is a listing? Can
producers, under the farm bill, they may be able to take their
land out of CRP and early out? And my thought is there may be
those who would want to do that if there is going to be a
conclusion that once that they're in grass and the listing
occurs, if and when the listing occurs, that that grass then it
becomes something permanent; something that the landowner can't
remove him or herself from. And I guess, most importantly,
would you foresee a situation where CRP contracts expire and
the producer is still forced to keep the ground and grass
undisturbed while being unpaid?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, what we've attempted to do with
all of the endangered species challenges that farmers and
ranchers and producers face is to try to create an opportunity
for more regulatory certainty for them. We've certainly done
this with the sage-grouse, and our Farm Service Agency office
is working on a similar concept with reference to CRP and
lesser prairie chicken.
And the way it has worked with sage-grouse is, essentially,
when producers agree to a certain suite of conservation
practices, they receive an assurance from the Department of the
Interior that they will not be required to do in addition to
what they've already done for a period of up to 30 years. So we
are trying to provide that advocacy, if you will, as you
mentioned, to create some kind of certainty so that we don't
ask folks to do things and then have the rules change on them
as they have made investments.
In terms of lesser prairie chicken, we will take that same
philosophy. We obviously don't want to make it more difficult
for producers; we want to encourage producers to do what they
need to do for their operations. So consistent with the farm
bill, consistent with that philosophy, we'll do everything we
can to provide as much flexibility and certainty as we can.
Senator Moran. Whose decision is that? Yours or--how does
that work? If the listing would occur, who ultimately
determines whether or not the habitat can be changed? The
contract expires. The farmer concludes they want to grow crops
on that ground. What you're telling me is if you're successful
again, in your advocacy that would be the land owner's choice?
Secretary Vilsack. It would be--yes.
I mean, that's basically what we're trying to say, look,
here is what we know works to produce better habitat for a
particular species. In terms of conservation, we want to
provide you the assistance, financial assistance, to do that
conservation work, and if you agree with us to do the
conservation work then you ought to receive assurance that's
all you're going to have to do in order to comply with whatever
the listing might be.
Senator Moran. Is that the Department of Agriculture's
position or if you make that decision it's what prevails? Does
somebody trump you in this process?
Secretary Vilsack. No, I don't think so. I mean, that's why
we enter into an arrangement or agreement with the agency
that's making the decision about the species. Department of the
Interior, they have to basically agree with us to agree in
advance of what the protections will be and the term will be.
And that's what we've attempted to do with sage-grouse and it's
been pretty successful in terms of farmer participation.
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, has my time expired? Is that
what that is?
Senator Pryor. Yes.
Senator Moran. All right.
I appreciate the suggestion of a second round.
Senator Pryor. Senator Tester.
FARM SERVICE AGENCY MODERNIZATION
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the Secretary for being here today. I very
much appreciate it. I appreciate your work. You got a new farm
bill that's different from the last one; significantly. You've
done some good work with livestock disaster, expediting that.
You understand the firefighting issue. I appreciate your local
foods system support and your bio-based ag products.
By your previous answer on some of your questions on the
FSA office closure you said that you're going to be doing
research in 2014 and that no offices would be closed between, I
don't want to put words in your mouth, just tell me, between
the first of October of this year and the end of September of
next year?
Secretary Vilsack. No. What I suggested was that we weren't
going to close any offices in 2014 calendar year.
Senator Tester. Calendar year?
Secretary Vilsack. Calendar year, 2014. We're going to use
that time to take, basically, take a look at where the work is.
Now, again, the context of this is important to understand.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack. A 20-percent reduction in workforce.
Technology, changing the way in which we do work, allows us to
ask the question: How would we modernize this system? And
that's the analysis we're going to do this year.
Senator Tester. Okay.
I was on the--it was the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS)--board 25 years ago, 24 years ago.
And I can tell you one of the big problems that the FSA had
then, even though it was under a different name, but the FSA
offices was getting the computer programs. That program still
exists. I just got a call from a neighbor that went in, they
didn't have the program set up to do what needed to be done,
they love their FSA agents, but were sent home and said come
back another day when we have our programs updated.
Do you have your arms around that issue? Because, if you--
let me just put it to you this way. If offices are closed and
there's a tardiness in getting--and I understand it's a
difficult situation for you, Mr. Secretary and the people
around you. And if those offices are closed and they don't get
those programs in a timely manner, we're setting ourselves up
for an explosion in rural America.
Secretary Vilsack. Well----
Senator Tester. With the new farm bill.
Secretary Vilsack. Certainly don't want that, and we're not
going to have that.
Senator Tester. Okay.
Secretary Vilsack. We're not going to have that.
Senator Tester. Okay.
So, when you talk about where the work is, you're talking
about how many contracts we're dealing with as far as per farm?
How many entities?
Secretary Vilsack. How many entities; how many, you know,
contracts they have; how many disaster----
Senator Tester. How about distance of travel?
Secretary Vilsack. That is, obviously, you all have
designated a 20-mile issue here. Frankly, there are, as I said,
30 offices that have no full-time employees. There's no one
there, okay. There are 111 offices that have one employee. And
there are some offices that have one employee that are within
30 miles of another office.
Senator Tester. I got it.
I think the big issue here is that we have a new farm bill.
In Montana, we've got some pretty vast distances. I mean, my
brother-in-law travels 70 miles one way to get to the FSA
office, okay. And I'm not saying that one will be closed down.
It probably wouldn't be. But there are other places that are
far more rural than that. And I would just say be very, very,
very careful because these agencies are very helpful and I
would love to be able to fill out my maps and do everything at
home on my kitchen table but we're not even close to that yet.
I mean, you might be, but the farmer isn't. We're not there. I
mean, we've got this up but we don't have the stuff. And so, be
careful when we start talking about closing. Make sure there is
the support there to take care of these folks because direct
payments are gone, this is a new system, and it may be a new
system that we deal with our agents with and not the FSA
office. I don't know about that because it's a new system. I
don't know how it's going to be done. So I would just ask you
be very careful when you start talking about closing offices
because these are the folks that actually determine whether
they like you or not. Honestly.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, the goal here is to make sure that
we serve folks in a proper and effective way and that we
modernize a system that honestly, Senator, requires
modernization but to do it in a way that appreciates the
concerns that you've raised.
Senator Tester. Yes. Okay, good.
And I would just, because my time has run out, I would just
say that the modernizing the system language has been around
for 25 years and it hasn't been done yet.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, it's happening, Senator.
Senator Tester. Okay.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
I'll now go to the second round. We have another Senator or
two that's going to be coming in in a moment but I'll go ahead
and jump in. Let me follow-up on one of Senator Tester's
questions there about the, sort of, the realignment of the FSA
offices. Has your Department given consideration to just
delaying this for a year while the new farm bill comes into
effect or do you think you can do it right now?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I don't think the new farm bill
is going to prevent us from doing what needs to be done given
the context of a reduced workforce and ensuring better service.
This is about better service. It's not about saving money. It's
not about consolidation for the sake of consolidation. This is
about bettering the service to producers.
And the reality is that we can do more for farmers and
ranchers who are challenged. This is a challenging environment
for folks. And I will tell you, it's a real challenging
environment for folks in the middle. The big guys are doing
okay. The small guys are coming up. But what's happening is an
erosion of the middle. And for me, what we can do is help those
folks stay in business. Now the only way to do that is to
provide them information, access to new programs, and the
ability to connect them with new opportunities. That requires a
different cross-trained personnel. You can't do that if you
only got one person in an office.
So you really have to look at how you would realign this.
This is absolutely not going to compromise our ability to get
the farm bill done. We understand that that is a principal,
primary responsibility which is why we're focused on it, which
is why we put in place these implementation teams, why we have
prioritized the rulemaking process, because we know what folks
out in the countryside want us to do and we're doing it.
Senator Pryor. Also, I think one point that he made is
true, and I know you'll consider this as you go through it. It
may be that some of the most rural areas need that FSA office
the most because they don't have the technology on the farm to
otherwise connect. So we've talked about that before and I know
you'll look at that as you go.
MIDAS PROGRAM
Let me also ask about the MIDAS program and the MIDAS
system. Do you have to--MIDAS has been kind of a long time
coming and lots of money in it, you know--anyway, we all know
the history there. But, do you have to make adjustments to it
based on the new farm bill or is it pretty malleable?
Secretary Vilsack. The new farm bill doesn't really impact
the design and the concept of MIDAS. The concept of MIDAS is,
first and foremost, the ability to access information about
your farm holdings regardless of what county you're sitting in
at the time. That's not farm bill related in any way, shape or
form.
The second piece of it is, whatever programs FSA offer,
whatever programs FSA is providing, that you have the capacity
if you have adequate broadband, and so forth, you have the
capacity to access that information from a distant location not
even going into a Farm Service Agency office if you don't have
to. Your convenience; your choice. That's not farm bill
dependent either. So this is about creating an infrastructure
that provides better service regardless of what the farm bill
is and regardless how many changes we have to make in future
farm bills.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
Senator Pryor. All right. Let me also say, I'm very pleased
to see the funding increase for ag research. So, again, thank
you for that. And I know that there's, you know, the capacity
and competitive, it seems like there's an emphasis on
competitive research here. And, could you just talk to the
subcommittee about that and, you know, how you all made those
decisions?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think there are three aspects of
research. One is a modernized Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) system which is our internal research efforts. We could
talk about that. Second, is the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA), and that really is designed for our
external relationships in which we are trying to leverage
scarce resources. We're trying to stretch scarce resources.
We're trying to create partnerships. But that is a system that
we control within USDA.
The farm bill creates the new foundation which is really
going to be private sector driven; we provide resources but we
don't provide much direction. And what we're proposing with the
institutes, the innovation institutes is filling the gap, where
we would partner with the private sector, but the private
sector would help drive this specific research project. We
would provide funding, we would provide direct assistance but
the private sector would basically make decisions about where
best to focus on pollinators. Should it be on the vector;
should it be on crop diversity; should it be on fort; what
should it be? The private sector would determine that.
So if we had that suite of opportunities, we would have, I
think, all our bases adequately covered and we would have more
resources going into and we would be more effectively
leveraging those resources.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Senator Blunt.
INNOVATION INSTITUTES
Senator Blunt. Mr. Secretary, do you see those as specific
locations or are those virtual locations in these new research
development areas that are public and private or how do you
envision that?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think, Senator, it's probably a
combination. I think there will probably be some places where
these institutes may have a staff person or so but, honestly,
we are really focused on virtual centers these days in an
effort to try to, again, leverage our resources as effectively
as we can and our technology as effectively as we can. This is
really more about identifying an area of need, pollinators and
microbial resistance issues. And then, saying to the private
sector, within that topic, what do you think the priority
research should be; here's money to do it; let's work together.
As opposed to what NIFA does; which is, NIFA says, we are
focused on pollinators and we're focused specifically on
vectors and we want you to look at that specific aspect of it
and we want to see what you can come up with in terms of
leveraging our resources on that particular, very specific,
topic. So it's a combination of things we're trying to put
together so that we've got all our bases covered.
Senator Blunt. And for those, like the pollinator research,
would you expect people to compete to be the lead agency or the
lead land-grant university, or whatever, in that----
Secretary Vilsack. That could be a way in which it's done
or the private sector could come in and say, look, this is
something that we are specifically interested in. A seed
company that understands the challenge that we face with
pollinators right now, they could come in and say, ``You know
what? We would like to companion partner with you, USDA, on a
joint relationship.'' We might ask University X to participate
with us; we might have our own internal research folks work on
this. It's really about creating as much flexibility and as
much coverage as we possibly can in agricultural research
because it has been underfunded and underappreciated for far
too long. And the President's Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology (PCAST) system basically suggested six of these
institutes and we're proposing three in this budget.
POULTRY SLAUGHTER MODERNIZATION
Senator Blunt. Right. And research, as you well know, is
one of the specific things mentioned when the Department was
created so that you wouldn't have to have research done all
over the country in all States and as part of the 1862 concept
of what this Department would do. Senator Pryor, I'm pleased to
see the research budget increase. I'm concerned on the food
safety inspector budget. That it decreases, if I read these
numbers right. And I suspect a lot of that relates to whether
or not the new inspection regime on poultry happens during this
budget year or not. And so, I'd like you to talk about that a
little bit.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, that's correct. But, I think it's
important to put this budget in a larger context before I
answer your question.
Fifty percent of this budget is spent on four issues; four
areas. It's spent on WIC, it's spent on fire suppression, it's
spent on food safety and it's spent on rental assistance. Fifty
percent of our budget. So when sequester is put into place or
cuts are proposed or reductions have to take place, the other
50 percent of our budget has to bear not only their share of
the cuts but this other 50 percent share because we've seen
increases.
So we have to look for ways in which we can continue to do
the job on food safety but allow, at least for some time, this
other 50 percent to get a little bit of relief as we try to
deal with scarce resources. So, one way to do that is by
improving and modernizing the way in which we inspect poultry
which we have not done for 60 years. And we believe, by doing
this, we can not only save money, but I think more importantly,
we can save lives. We believe that there are thousands of
people who are getting sick that won't get sick under this new
system because it takes our inspectors and gives them
additional responsibilities to look at places where, we know,
based on science, pathogens attached to poultry, as opposed to
what they're currently doing which is focusing more on cosmetic
issues. That's something, obviously, the company itself should
be concerned about because it involves not the safety but the
marketability of a product.
So our theory is that we would restructure the way in which
poultry is inspected, save money, and also save lives.
Senator Blunt. And where are we there? Do we have a
proposed rule out on this?
Secretary Vilsack. We have a rule that's currently in the
process of going through the regulatory process. And, we have
obviously a lot of concerns expressed about this but I think a
lot of folks who are expressing concerns may not fully
appreciate and understand what we're actually focusing on
trying to do here.
Senator Blunt. And what would be a reasonable timetable on
implementing the final rule?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, our hope is that we get this done
in 2014 so that we essentially can factor it into the budget
that you all are working on.
WIC FUNDING INCREASE
Senator Blunt. I'll come back in a minute when we have a
little more time, assuming we get back to another set of
questions. I think you mentioned WIC as part of that 50
percent. I believe, I don't have those numbers in front of me
at this moment, but I believe I saw a WIC increase of $200
million. Am I close to the right number?
Secretary Vilsack. That's for the contingency, I believe.
It's $200 or $150----
Senator Blunt. When you're increasing one category by $200
million it's pretty hard to do the other things that you would
hope to do.
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Secretary Vilsack. It is but, of course, there is need and
there is a need for--the problem with some of these programs is
that you don't quite know precisely how many people you're
going to serve from year to year so you have to have some
wiggle room within that budget. The same thing is true with the
rental assistance program which is why we're asking for a
reform of that system to give us greater predictability and
certainty about exactly what we actually have to spend in that
category to provide 285,000 families with assistance.
Senator Blunt. Well, I do think the direction you're headed
in in the rental assistance is a good one and I look forward to
working with you on that. And my time is up, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Pryor. We've been joined by Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson.
ACTIVE PERSONAL MANAGEMENT
Senator Johnson. Welcome, Secretary Vilsack.
The farm bill directed you to develop a framework for
determining whether an individual is actively engaged in a
farming operation and thus their eligibility for farm program
payments. As you know, both the Senate and House bills included
a meaningful hard cap on payments that would allow payments to
the operators and crop share landlords as well as one
additional farm manager. I would urge you to take this approach
which was endorsed with strong bipartisan support in both the
Senate and House. But whatever approach you take in this
rulemaking, can I have your commitment that you will pursue a
structure that maintains an effective payment limit of $125,000
that does not allow farms to manipulate the actively engaged
rules?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, we will do what the law
requires us to do. I would point out that Congress has given us
limited capacity in this respect based on the definition of
family farm that's included in that discussion of actively
engaged. We will take a look at what latitude we have, in terms
of that definition, and we will do it in a way that maintains
the integrity of the system that allows us to be able to
explain it to ordinary folks as to why it's important to have a
safety net for farmers and we will do it in a way that I think
is consistent with the intent of Congress. But I will tell you,
it is a fairly narrow avenue that you all have created for us
to work in.
Senator Johnson. Do you have a specific timeframe for
developing a rule defining actively engaged?
Secretary Vilsack. Our goal is to have a proposal by the
end of calendar year 2014.
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING PROGRAM
Senator Johnson. I appreciate the work you've done to
restructure our Country of Origin Labeling Program in a way
that accurately conveys information to consumers while meeting
our international trade commitments. I also appreciated your
commitment to defending the program before the World Trade
Organization (WTO) during the ongoing review. What do you
anticipate the timeframe will be for the WTO process moving
forward?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I think the next milestone in
this process is probably sometime in June and July of this
year; receiving some indication from the WTO as to whether or
not we're right that we are in compliance with the WTO ruling
or whether Canada and Mexico's concerns have not been fully
addressed. We believe we have addressed them. We believe we've
done it consistent with the congressional directive as well as
the WTO directive.
SUN GRANT INITIATIVE
Senator Johnson. With respect to the Sun Grant Initiative
I'm disappointed that the budget request, once again, proposes
to eliminate funding particularly since this important program
was recently reauthorized in the farm bill as a competitive
program. Noting that the manager's statement of the farm bill
directs the Department to use the current framework of the Sun
Grant Centers in order to maintain the current leadership and
management of the program, what is your intention for the
future of the Sun Grant Initiative?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I think that we are attempting
to address the work that's done by the Sun Grants which is
important work in both the bio-based product manufacturing
innovation institute that is proposed as well as the increases
and the resources that we've asked for under our Competitive
Grant Program in NIFA. We understand the importance of this. We
just think it ought to be rolled into the existing overall
structure of research as opposed to being sort of in its own
little area. Obviously, we will do what Congress instructs us
to do on this but that's the rationale behind it.
LIVESTOCK DISASTER PROGRAMS
Senator Johnson. I sincerely appreciate the steps you've
taken to get the livestock disaster programs out to producers
as quickly as possible, particularly with the April 15 signup
date. Obviously, there is a unique need for these programs in
South Dakota as a result of the terrible Atlas blizzard last
fall.
What is the Department doing to inform producers about the
availability of the program as well as about the information
that will be required to be eligible for payments?
Secretary Vilsack. At this point, we are making sure that
our folks in offices around the country are well acquainted
with what we're proposing and what we're doing so that they
will be in a position to begin that education process very,
very quickly. Our expectation is that folks who have been doing
the disaster programs in the past aren't going to see any
significant change in the way in which the programs are done.
So we don't know that it's necessarily going to be a lot of
education on the producer's side. We do know that we want them
to be in a position to be able to file applications by April 15
and we are on track to get that done.
Senator Johnson. My time has expired.
LIMITED-IRRIGATION CROP INSURANCE PRODUCT PROGRAM
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, unfortunately drought continues in Kansas
and one of the innovative ways of promoting water conservation
and yet allowing farmers a shot at success is the limited-
irrigation crop insurance product program. It's a pilot
program. We've never gotten it beyond the pilot program. Can
you help us accomplish a broader application of this concept?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I would love to be able to do
that. But I think we have to do it in a way that is actuarially
sound. And the reality is that we just, in many places in
Kansas and other parts of the country, don't feel that we have
adequate data to be able to do that. So, what we have done and
attempt to do is on a case-by-case, individual-by-individual
basis, come up with some kind of agreement that is akin to crop
insurance and that is being done in a number of counties in
your State. I think until we amass enough information and have
enough data, you know, and which we're attempting to do, I
think it would be a bit premature for us to actually institute
a policy because we have to make sure that it's going to work.
You know, I think we have, you know, we are working on some
strategies but our team has told me that they just simply are
not comfortable with the data yet. So if there's a way in which
we can accumulate more information we'd be happy to work with
you and your----
Senator Moran. Tell me a little bit more about what you are
indicating--about a landowner-by-landowner or farmer-by-farmer
opportunity?
Secretary Vilsack. It's an agreement. As I understand it,
that it's a one-on basically. It's not a policy. It's not a
program. It's working specifically with an individual.
Senator Moran. Managed by the Risk Management Agency (RMA)?
Secretary Vilsack. I believe so, yes.
Senator Moran. Okay.
UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND REFORM
Mr. Secretary, we've had a conversation about this
previously, maybe a year ago in this similar setting. You know
that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an
order related to the Universal Service Fund, so-called
Universal Service Fund Reform. That happened in October 2011.
There's been some modifications in my view fortunately by the
FCC to ameliorate some of the problems that we've highlighted
with that order. And one of the concerns I've raised with you,
but with the FCC, is the relationship between that order and
the ability for telephone companies, rural electric--I'm sorry,
rural telephone companies to be able to repay the loans with
the Rural Utility Service.
Can you bring me up to date on the status of that problem
or that circumstance?
Secretary Vilsack. We expressed the same concerns and I
think Chairman Wheeler is sympathetic to this. As I understand
it, they've essentially capped the impact of some of the
changes so it makes it a little bit easier for these small
telecoms, telcos, to be able to make their payments. We have
had very few incidences within USDA's portfolio of the
inability to make payments. We'll obviously continue to work
with folks but at this point in time we're at least
appreciative of the steps that have been taken by the FCC
recently. We also appreciate the fact that they've gone through
a second round of the Connect USA Program, Connect America
Program, with a little bit more flexibility which I think is a
good thing as well.
So we're working with them, we've communicated our
concerns, and I think there's a bit more flexibility than we've
seen in the past, and I think that's positive for rural telcos.
Senator Moran. I do, too.
And I think that you were instrumental in causing that
flexibility to occur and I appreciate that. I just encourage
you to continue to work with us and others to make certain that
the FCC gets an order that is not--the challenges that we face
is that these rural telephone companies were doing what, in a
sense, they were incentivized to do by the Federal Government.
Asked to do, in fact, to expand broadband both in the
President's plan and in the Rural Utility Service's program
that's been around for a long time. And the FCC has an order
that then it creates, certainly, a different financial
circumstance than what was expected when these companies began
the path of expanding broadband to rural America.
FSA OFFICE MODERNIZATION
Let me associate myself with the gentleman from Montana in
his raising concerns about offices, FSA. I've been through this
as a member of Congress back in my House days of colocation,
reducing the number of FSA offices, reducing the number of NRCS
offices, and there are tremendous challenges still with this
concept that farmers have the technology necessary to do this
at home or at their office. And I just would encourage you, and
I think you had this conversation with Senator Blunt, that
information would be provided to us as you develop a plan so
that we can have input in the process. I assume no Secretary
really wants us to have input in the process. But if we could,
I think it will avoid us having the arguments and the debate at
the end. If we can be a partner in this process it would be
useful.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, more than happy to have that.
But, just again, the context of this is--remember the 50
percent of the budget? And then the other 50 percent? And then,
so when you do sequester and when you do some of the things you
all have done, something's got to give.
Now, in this particular case, this is not about saving
money. It's really about modernizing the system. And I think
that's an important point that I will be emphasizing just as
you emphasize the challenges of this. This system has got to be
modernized.
Senator Moran. I detected your emphasis and I'm not a
supporter of across-the-board cuts. I think it is the reason I
would ask you to include us in this conversation is because we
have a role here to prioritize how money is spent. And I'd like
the opportunity to help accomplish that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
And I assume, as part of modernizing that ultimately we do
save money and create more efficiency.
Senator Tester.
PUBLIC CULTIVARS
Senator Tester. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, I very much appreciate--you talk about the
erosion of the middle. I think you are spot-on. And I think
what you do to encourage the small producers of local food
systems is very, very important.
And I, too, want to talk about what Senator Moran talked
about and that is being an advocate for a way of life that,
quite frankly, in my 57 years on this earth, I have seen
evaporate. The way of life we've had in agriculture, when I
graduated from high school, is leaving exponentially fast. And
I say that not as an outside observer, I say that as someone on
the inside looking out. And it's not your fault; it is a
combination of things that have happened.
One of the things out there that I am very concerned about
is the access to public seed varieties. We visited about this
before and I do know that from a production of agriculture
standpoint it is always great to think about seeds that will
grow without any water or without any nutrients and with
difficult situations with the climate change we have now. And
that may be all well and good but the fact is we're seeing
public cultivars. Those cultivars we don't have to pay for.
Those cultivars that I can buy from you if you're a farmer and
not have to pay a technology agreement for, are disappearing
and disappearing quite rapidly. I've tried to advocate for some
of the money set forth in food research and, by the way, we
have been very remiss from public dollars going into research
for seeds. It has been criminal, as a matter of fact. And we've
seen the private sector do it and we see the private sector
getting rich off of this.
So could you give me any idea on what can happen as far
as--or what needs to happen? What you can do, what we need to
do to be able to have more public cultivars out there that
actually meet the needs of different regions of this country?
Because I think it's very important.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Senator, I think it's important
for us to understand that we are focused on this as well. We
have essentially over 100 projects in place today; 150 of our
scientists are working on this in all 50 States to ensure that
we continue to have the diversity in agriculture that's
important.
Last year, I think, 700 germplasm samples were distributed
from the 20 seed banks that we have. So there is work being
done in this space, and there is a sensitivity to the need for
all types of breeding systems to be supported. And I think the
fact that you raised it last year, you're raising it this year,
allows me to go back and make sure that our team is sensitive
to this.
If I might just--this issue of the middle is just extremely
important. You mentioned it and at some point in time I'd like
just 1 minute of the committee's time to talk about it. If this
is the right time, I'll do it. If not, I'll wait.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Senator Tester. It's not a prime time for me because I've
got questions I've got to ask. But I think the chairman will
let you have at least a minute on this because I think it's a
huge--I would just say it and I'm not going to--you understand
it and you understand it well. I think what I am seeing as a
farmer and I am still actively engaged in Agriculture is I'm
not seeing a lot of options out there as far as public. I can
go buy seed like crazy but as far as public cultivars, there
aren't many around. I'll just tell you that from my
perspective. So that be that.
I want to talk a little bit about that middle a little bit
from my perspective. And it revolves a lot around rural
development. And I told you that in my 50 years of paying
attention on this earth I have watched farmers get bigger and
smaller and rural communities dry up. That's not stopping. It
happens every time I go home and I drive into my little town
that used to have a thousand people in it that now have 600; a
school that used to have 165 kids in high school now has less
than 60. We're seeing rural America continue to dry up.
Can you tell me what's in this budget that you're proud of,
you're particularly proud of that is going to help rural
development; it's going to help bring people back into frontier
and rural America in a way that's positive. And if there are
multiple things, list them very quickly. And tell me what you
would like to see us do to really reinvigorate rural America,
because, quite frankly, we've got a new farm bill right now, I
voted for it, I support it, but it isn't going to do it.
Hopefully there are things out there within your budget that
will do it.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Senator, I think that we've begun
a process. We now have a strategy which I don't think we had
before and the strategy is very clear: Production agriculture
and exports, local and regional food systems creating new
market opportunities, the bio-based economy, the ability to
take what we grow and what we raise and every aspect of it and
convert it into not just fuel and energy as we have but
chemicals, polymers, plastics, I think that is the future, and
a creative way of using our conservation resources not only to
improve our land and water but also to meet regulatory
responsibilities of regulated industries that can be met as
easily with conservation on the farm as it can be with creating
great infrastructure.
All of those aspects are in our budget, supported in our
budget, and with the assistance of this committee and the
Senate and the House, we will continue to do work in these four
areas. And I honestly believe that will be a difference.
The problem has been that production agriculture is
extraordinarily efficient and as it has become efficient fewer
farmers were needed. What wasn't done was to have a companion
natural resource economy to compliment production agriculture.
We're putting that in place now. It will not be done overnight
but it is where I think we're headed in the right direction.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE VACANCIES
Senator Tester. I appreciate that.
Just a passing note that I also want to get on the record,
we have an ARS facility in Sidney, Montana. They have three
openings there that are very, very important when it comes to
research. Very important. Not just seed crops but pests, all
sorts of good stuff they do. I would hope that, since we're out
of sequestration now, that those vacancies might be able to be
filled.
GIPSA RULE
The last thing I would say is that I was going to get into
the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
(GIPSA) rule but the fact is that, you know, the challenges
there. If we're going to have a free market system, a
capitalistic system in agriculture, GIPSA is pretty damn
important from my perspective and I appreciate anything you can
do to make sure that happens.
Secretary Vilsack. We tried, Senator.
Senator Tester. I know you did.
Thank you.
Senator Pryor. Go ahead and speak your piece on the middle.
Secretary Vilsack. I actually did in 30 seconds.
Senator Pryor. Okay. Just want to give you a chance to do
that.
WIC FOOD COSTS
Let me also clarify something. I think that the WIC
increase is $107-plus million, say $108 million, am I reading
that right? There is a number, there's a $322 million that
where you're doing a new WIC package, there's increase but you
have other offsets and changes in the program. But I do have a
question about that because I think one of the challenges there
is food prices go up and down and I think the USDA is expecting
a 3.5 percent increase in food prices this year. And so, you
know, they can rise sharply in any given year. So I guess the
question would be--sounds like you're building in a contingency
but you feel like you have sufficient contingency there to
cover any increase in food cost this year?
Secretary Vilsack. We do, based upon our best estimate as
to what the package would likely be. There's been a lot of
conversation about food inflation recently. Unfortunately,
folks are comparing it to the previous year where inflation was
pretty low. But even this year, as I think Dr. Glauber will
attest, it's within historic ranges. So despite our challenges,
I think we're still going to see, you know, not an
extraordinarily high rate of inflation. We think we're pretty
confidant with our WIC numbers.
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING PROGRAM
Senator Pryor. Senator Blunt, you have a question.
Senator Blunt. Yes, I do.
Secretary, on the Country of Origin Labeling Program where
are we in terms of the WTO action on that? And do we have a
planned response if that action is an action against us?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I think we will get a read, a
basic read, in June of what the WTO is likely to do and in July
perhaps a more formal response. And I think it's important for
us to allow that system to play out. That's why we were
concerned about trying to change what we were doing in the
middle of this process. I think the answer to your question,
what do we do if we lose? I think a lot of it depends on
precisely what the WTO says and if they don't agree that we've
been in compliance, why we're not in compliance. Because, when
they ruled the last time it was you can label. Our view was,
from what they said, you weren't specific enough. Well, now
we're quite specific. So we will see what they determine.
Senator Blunt. And was, on the not so quite specific
options, was one of the options North America label or not?
Secretary Vilsack. There was a lot of that type of
conversation, but I think what we took from the WTO ruling was
that you had to be quite specific in terms of the various steps
in the process: where was the animal raised; where was the
animal processed; where was the animal slaughtered; et cetera.
And I think we have done that. We will see what the WTO says
and once we see what they say, we will respond and react
accordingly.
Senator Blunt. And I assume the packers are having to
adjust their processing lines to meet those various pedigrees
of animal?
Secretary Vilsack. They do. And obviously they have raised
concerns about that.
REGULATORY PROCESS
Senator Blunt. You and I were in Brazil this summer for a
couple of days talking to them about their regulatory
environment on science-based changes, on biotech changes. Like
what we saw there was they have come where they have what
neither of us would have considered a back log of any kind.
Whether that's accurate or not, what are your thoughts about
what we can do to get our process to where it meets every
requirement we need to meet but isn't needlessly slowing down
this process of meeting world food needs and other things that
we're involved in?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, first of all, our Brazilian
friends, they had a different starting point for when they
began their regulatory process. And if you actually start it
where we start our regulatory process, their timelines were
very consistent with our current timelines. We have reformed
the system. We have reduced the amount of time it takes for the
regulatory decisions to take place. I think we've cut out
somewhere in the neighborhood of 360 days in that system. We
still have a little more work to do. We have also begun the
process of reducing the backlog that I inherited when I became
Secretary. I'd say we've probably cut it nearly in half and we
are projected to continue that reduction to the point where we
will be on time.
We've made certain commitments about activities in
connection with this new system and we've lived up to those
commitments at this point in time. So I'm reasonably confident
that we now have a very good streamlined system that does the
due diligence that is required but doesn't have a
disproportionate delay just simply because the regulatory
system is clogged up.
Senator Blunt. I'm going to look at that chart again, if I
can get my hands on it, and see. I do think we're a little
slower but I'm prepared to take your word for that and look and
see what that starting point is.
REGULATORY SYSTEMS
On that similar topic, Senator Pryor and I hosted a
discussion session with Bill Gates a few days, about 10 days
ago with this subcommittee to talk about what they're doing
with ag research and application around the world, and I guess
my question is what are we doing if anything to help other
countries meet a standard that's acceptable and at the same
time not needlessly slow in meeting the needs that they have.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I would say a couple things. First
of all, we have worked with Brazil in an effort to have the two
largest producers of biotechnology crops to speak on the same
page at the same time with the same message to the rest of the
world. And we are in the process now of taking a look at how we
might be able to enlarge that in terms of membership both in
Latin America and South America so that we, at least, have
consistency.
We are sending the same level of messages to our friends in
China about the importance of them understanding that it's in
their long-term best interest to have a regulatory system
that's more synchronized with ours. We have a pilot project
that we're attempting to work with them on so that they can
learn that synchronization is not going to put them in a
disadvantageous position. So we are working with China to try
to embrace this.
Obviously, we have some challenges with our European Union
(EU) friends on this topic and I think that's going to be part
of the overall conversations as we look at trade agreements and
free trade agreements. We're not going to have a free trade
agreement unless there is some better understanding upon the
part of the EU of acceptance and market access to biotechnology
crops. So it's a combination of things.
And then I'd say the last thing we are working with
producers in Africa, in particular, to encourage them to
understand the opportunities that new technology has created in
terms of increased productivity. It's rolled up into our
efforts of Feed the Future and work with the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) on embracing these new
technologies in developing countries. So there's a multiple
process, multiple-step process, in place.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
And our vote has started, so let me say that I'd like to
thank you and your team for being here today and your
preparation and all your answers. We've covered a lot of ground
and what we'll do is, because we have to run to this vote,
we'll go ahead and leave the record open.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
We'd ask our members of the subcommittee who are not able
to either ask questions today or weren't able to complete their
questions today, we'd ask them to get all of their questions in
by Wednesday, April 2. And then, we would appreciate the
Department, if you could get us answers back within 4 weeks
that would be great with us. And then, of course we want you to
answer our questions first, right? Is that right?
Yes, okay.
[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 Mark L. Pryor
agriculture buildings and facilities
Question. Secretary Vilsack, the Department is proposing the
decentralization of the General Services Administration (GSA) rental
payments and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) security payments. I
understand that the increases to USDA Agency budgets are the equivalent
shares of the costs based upon current space occupancy across the
United States and that the central account has been reduced
accordingly.
Can you please tell me the rationale behind the shifting of funds
from the central account into the each Agency account?
Answer. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agencies occupy
centrally funded space for which they have no direct accountability or
incentive to use in an efficient and effective manner. The centralized
funding mechanism for GSA rent and DHS Security does not link these
costs directly to the agencies' programs and delivery activities.
Having agencies pay for the full cost of their GSA-leased space will
encourage them to make good business decisions to further consolidation
efforts, reduce space through teleworking and hoteling strategies and
affect other economies of scale such as open space. Currently, the
central account still pays the majority of their space costs and
results in a lack of ownership by agencies for their occupied space.
The shift of the rent and security funding will encourage agencies to
make the best use of scarce funds.
Question. Will this shift result in savings for the Department? If
so, will the Department reduce their appropriations request
accordingly?
Answer. In the short run this shift will not result in savings for
the Department. Agencies will have to assume the full costs for the GSA
rental payment and the DHS Security payments for their occupied space,
along with any rental or security cost overruns when they begin direct
payment in fiscal year 2015. Also, GSA is now directing agencies into
green space leases that often cost more than traditional office space.
It will take time for the economies of scale to be effective.
Eventually by having agencies totally responsible for their space usage
and security payments there will be cost avoidance if not savings to
the USDA agencies as a result of this initiative as they further their
consolidation efforts, reduce total space needs through teleworking and
hoteling strategies, effect other economies of scale such as open
office space, or move to non-GSA space.
agricultural research service
Redirection of Funds
Question. Mr. Secretary, I do understand some research projects
should be discontinued for higher priority research and I am happy to
see that the funding and staff years will remain at the Rice Research
Facility in Stuttgart, Arkansas. However, I am not sure why the
research funds for the Development and Characterization of Genetic
Resources for Agronomic and Quality Traits Using Genomic Tools is being
redirected to Livestock Genetic Improvements and Translational Breeding
for Enhanced Food Production.
Can you please explain the rationale for redirecting the funds to
this new initiative?
Answer. Thank you for the opportunity to highlight USDA's continued
support for the U.S. rice industry, U.S. rice research, and rice
breeding. Arkansas is the largest rice producing State and the Dale
Bumpers National Rice Research Center (DBNRRC), Stuttgart, Arkansas,
and its scientists are key to that continued success.
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget initiative for ``Advanced
Crop and Livestock Genetic Improvements and Translational Breeding for
Enhanced Food Production'', is a cross-cutting initiative that includes
research locations like the Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center
that are 100-percent crop research, and locations that are 100-percent
animal research.
To be clear, the focus of the research at DBNRRC remains on rice
and the rice industry's needs. As you mentioned, the Stuttgart team is
currently focused on the Development and Characterization of Genetic
Resources for Agronomic and Quality Traits Using Genomic Tools.
Under the President's budget initiative for fiscal year 2015, the
Stuttgart team will conduct similar work but gain access to key genetic
resources, knowledge and tools for classical and genomics enabled rice
breeding. This initiative is an example of USDA deploying its resources
more effectively.
national institute of food and agriculture
Innovation Institutes
Question. Mr. Secretary, the report from PCAST recommended the
creation of six large, multidisciplinary innovation institutes focused
on emerging challenges to agriculture, supported by public-private
partnerships. In 2015, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA) is requesting $75 million for three new institutes which include
pollination and pollinator health, manufacturing innovation and anti-
microbial resistance.
Why were these three institutes chosen?
Answer. The research foci of these three innovation institutes are
on important agricultural problems in the public domain, but where
private sector participation can be essential in advancing the research
goals and also deploying the research outcomes. Their selection was the
ultimate product of stakeholder listening sessions conducted by the
Department, administration priorities, and the feedback brought to us
by members of Congress and a wide cross section of citizens with
legitimate concerns about pollinator protection, anti-microbial
resistance, and the state of the rural economy.
Question. How did USDA determine the scope of the three proposed
Innovation Institutes?
Answer. USDA has based actions to date regarding the innovation
institutes on five organizing principles:
--1. Public-private partnerships are integral to solving important
agricultural issues.
--2. Competitive processes will be used to select the participants in
the Institutes.
--3. Institutes are to address the challenges to agriculture:
--a. that the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) identified,
--b. in a manner consistent with the intent of Congress, and
--c. informed by the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request.
--4. Institutes will take advantage of university, private sector,
and ARS infrastructure.
--5. Funds should go to research, not to bricks and mortar. The
expectation is that multiple partners in diverse universities
and organizations will mean a distributed virtual organization.
The PCAST report suggested several models that fit into these five
guiding principles. They include bioenergy institutes established by
the Department of Energy and British Petroleum, as well as the energy
hubs and energy frontier research centers established by that same
Department. USDA used these models, listened to stakeholder feedback,
and determined the scope for the three proposed Innovation Institutes
that fit into our established guiding principles.
Question. What criteria will the Department use when selecting the
recipients of these grants?
Answer. The National Institute of Food and Agriculture will conduct
a competitive process to select the recipients of these grants.
Selection criteria will include the grant recipient's ability to form
and maintain a high quality public-private scientific consortium; the
scientific merit of the proposal; the qualifications of project
personnel, the adequacy of facilities and project management; and the
relevance of the project, which includes the project's potential for a
dramatic and demonstrable impact on the defined problem to be addressed
by the particular innovation institute.
Question. Will the recipient be expected to match or meet a certain
funding level?
Answer. There are no preset funding levels at this time for
recipients. There is a desire for significant non-Federal investment in
the innovation institutes, as well as public and private intellectual
capital, which is shared by both the PCAST report and the Department.
This desire led the National Institute of Food and Agriculture to
propose forming the innovation institutes under the authority of 7
U.S.C. section 450a. It was determined that this was the best of many
existing authorities under consideration for this purpose because it
authorizes agreements, including the receipt of funds, from any State,
other political subdivision, organization or individual for the purpose
of conducting research projects.
foundation for food and agricultural research
Question. Will the new Foundation for Food and Agricultural
Research receive funding from existing National Institute of Food and
Agriculture programs?
Answer. Currently we do not believe that the Foundation for Food
and Agricultural Research will receive any funding from existing
National Institute of Food and Agriculture programs in fiscal year 2014
or fiscal year 2015.
national animal health laboratory network
Question. New funding is authorized in the farm bill for the
National Animal Health Laboratory Network to enhance the capability of
the Secretary to respond to emerging and existing threats to animal
health and to coordinate enhancement of national veterinary diagnostic
laboratory capabilities using existing Federal, State, and university
facilities.
How would USDA ensure that this new funding would be leveraged to
enhance current national veterinary diagnostic laboratory capabilities
to detect, respond to and recovery from emerging and existing threats
to animal health across the United States of America?
Answer. If funding were provided for the National Animal Health
Laboratory Network (NAHLN) as authorized in the farm bill, the
Department would prioritize activities based on the NAHLN strategic
plan, carry out emerging disease detection and response initiatives,
and increase the capacity and capability of the network. Specifically,
USDA would increase support for laboratory infrastructure; dedicate
funding to support the identification of emerging diseases; enhance
support for animal health community preparedness needs, such as
business continuity plans and validating diagnostic assays to fill
identified gaps; and continue to support laboratories' capabilities
through expanded outbreak scenario exercises. The existing network of
laboratories across the country, established in 2002--based on long-
standing cooperation, communication, accountability, and adherence to
standards--would be leveraged through participation in emergency
response exercises and in development and validation of diagnostic
methods and techniques. The function of and commitment to the network
has become integral to many of NAHLN's approximately 60 laboratories.
The current diagnostic capabilities, facilities and expertise within
these laboratories will be the basis for moving the network forward and
addressing identified gaps.
agricultural research
Research Investment Balance
Question. Does USDA anticipate reconfiguring the balance between
major crop and specialty crop research? If so, how?
Answer. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) raised the issue of the balance of the portfolio of
research on agriculture in its report to the President on Agricultural
Preparedness and the Agriculture Research Enterprise issued in December
2012.
The Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics has
suggested to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education,
and Economics Advisory Board that it examine the question of the
current balance of research in the Research, Education and Economics
(REE) portfolio and give her its view of how the balance should be
regarded and set in the future.
No decision has been made on reconfiguring the balance between
major crops and specialty crop research at this time.
national science foundation
Question. The President's 2012 PCAST report included a
recommendation that the National Science Foundation increase its budget
for basic science relevant to agriculture to $250 million per year as
compared to the current $120 million. How has USDA worked with NSF in
this regard to ensure that there is no overlap?
Answer. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) recommended in its report to the President that the
National Science Foundation (NSF) should receive an increase to $250
million in its funding for basic science relevant to agriculture, which
would have been an increase of $130 million. USDA is not aware that NSF
has received such an amount for agricultural sciences in recent
appropriations.
Across the Department, there is a very cooperative relationship
with NSF. The joint objective is to maximize the benefits of
agricultural research and minimize duplication of effort. REE agencies,
in particular the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the National
Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA), consult with NSF about
research priorities on a consistent basis. Specific projects are
coordinated with NSF when appropriate and relevant. Because USDA's REE
agencies have an Action Plan that is posted on our Web site,
researchers across the country that may be seeking to apply for
currently available NSF grants can understand what USDA is doing, and
NSF reviewers can also check on current research projects underway at
USDA. NIFA grants are also a matter of public information and made
available through the Current Research Information System and the
Research, Education, and Economics Information System.
Through the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, the
Department's flagship extramural funding program, the NIFA conducts
several joint programs with NSF: Ecology and Evolution of Infectious
Diseases, the National Robotics Initiative, and Water Sustainability
and Climate. The Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases program
supports research on the ecological, evolutionary, and socio-ecological
principles and processes that influence the transmission dynamics of
infectious diseases. The goal of the National Robotics Initiative is to
accelerate the development and use of robots in the United States that
work beside, or cooperatively with, people. The goal of the Water
Sustainability and Climate (WSC) solicitation is to understand and
predict the interactions between the water system and climate change,
land use (including agriculture, managed forest and rangeland systems),
the built environment, and ecosystem function and services through
place-based research and integrative models. This programmatic
cooperation speaks to the close working relationship of the two science
agencies that helps to avoid duplicative research.
nifa grants
Question. How many competitive agriculture research grants were
awarded in fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2013 compared to fiscal
year 2012?
Answer. USDA awarded 996 non-formula agricultural research and
integrated grants in fiscal year 2012. There were 808 non-formula
agriculture research and integrated grants awarded in fiscal year 2013.
Preliminary data show there were 966 non-formula agricultural research
and integrated grants awarded in fiscal year 2014. The number of grants
decreased in fiscal year 2013 due to funding reductions including
rescissions, sequestration, elimination of mandatory funds, and the
continuing resolution in that fiscal year.
Question. How many research grant applications were received in
fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2013 compared to fiscal year 2012?
Answer. USDA received 4,301 research grant applications in fiscal
year 2012 and preliminary data shows we received 5,650 research grant
applications in fiscal year 2013. Preliminary data shows we received
6,191 grant applications in fiscal year 2014.
Question. Has the median award amount for agriculture research
grants decreased since fiscal year 2012?
Answer. Yes, the median award amount for agriculture research
grants from USDA has decreased from $202,483 in fiscal year 2012 to
$192,500 in fiscal year 2013. We will not know if it has decreased or
increased in fiscal year 2014 until all awards are made for the fiscal
year.
farm-vets program
Question. Mr. Secretary, the Department is requesting $2.5 million
to establish the FARM-Vets program to promote competition for basic and
applied research that explores career opportunities and pathways,
therapeutic interventions, resource conservation, and related studies
for the veteran population in the food and agriculture sector. I
understand that the funds will be used for projects that help veterans
develop farming and ranching skills, business plans, and agriculture
systems management.
Please explain how the FARM-Vets program will work?
Answer. The $2.5 million request to fund the Food and Agriculture
Resiliency Program for Military Veterans (FARM-Vets) program is
designed to promote competition for basic and applied research.
Research will explore career opportunities and pathways, therapeutic
interventions, resource conservation, and related studies for the
veteran population in the food and agriculture sector. Understanding
why and how best to engage veterans in the agricultural sector is
congruent with the critical need to identify a new generation of
farmers, livestock producers, and entrepreneurs as an aging workforce
transitions to retirement, especially in rural areas where shortages
are acute. Similarly, there is a limited body of research that points
to the therapeutic value of working the land in terms of psychological
and behavioral health function and benefit.
The Department expects FARM-Vets basic and applied research
projects to inform the establishment and scalability of educational
programming that helps veterans develop farming and ranching skills,
business plans, agriculture systems management skills, knowledge and
access to credit. FARM-Vet research will complement the Beginning
Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) which the USDA also
administers. BFRDP is an education, training, technical assistance and
outreach program designed to help U.S. farmers, ranchers, and managers
of non-industrial private forest land--specifically those who have been
farming or ranching for 10 years or less and those who aim to start. As
a result of the 2014 farm bill, at least 5 percent of available BFRDP
funding will be allocated to programming and services for military
veteran farmers and ranchers annually through 2018. Since BFRDP cannot
support research, future FARM-Vets discoveries will inform, improve and
enhance BFRDP programming.
Question. How many veterans will benefit from this new program and
will they receive cash grants?
Answer. The Food and Agriculture Resiliency Program for Military
Veterans (FARM-Vets) program will be administered as a competitive
research grant program in cooperation and coordination with colleges
and universities. The FARM-Vets program will not provide direct cash
grants to veterans. It will fund basic and applied research that will
explore career opportunities and pathways, therapeutic interventions,
resource conservation, and related studies for the veteran population
in the food and agriculture sector. NIFA expects FARM-Vets basic and
applied research projects to inform the establishment and scalability
of educational programming that helps veterans develop farming and
ranching skills, business plans, agriculture systems management,
knowledge and access to credit, and land use issues. Any veterans
participating in FARM-Vets research projects will benefit directly or
indirectly based upon outcomes and findings. Actual numbers of veterans
benefiting will be determined by the number of research studies funded,
subset size participating, and results extrapolated to the full veteran
population. The research conducted would also help ensure an evidence-
based foundation on which program and policy can be built.
animal and plant health inspection service
Question. Mr. Secretary, what is the status of implementation of
the national feral hog initiative?
Answer. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is
implementing a national, cooperative effort to reduce damage caused by
feral or free ranging swine. APHIS is utilizing available funding to:
(1) control feral swine population; (2) test animals for diseases; and
(3) conduct research to identify better methods of managing feral swine
damage. APHIS has established operational programs in all States where
there is a recognized feral swine population. APHIS is leading the
effort, tailoring activities to each State's circumstance and working
closely with other Federal, State, tribal, and local entities.
APHIS has formed State-level task forces, to coordinate approaches
and further ensure program success. We have begun to conduct
operational activities in cooperation with our partners. APHIS has
allowed variation among State agreements to account for individual
State interests, regulations, along with variation in habitat and
resources. APHIS' strategy is to provide resources and expertise at a
national level, while allowing flexibility to manage operational
activities from a local or State perspective. In States with relatively
few feral swine we are collaborating on efforts to eliminate the
animals from those States. In other States where feral swine are more
abundant we are cooperating to suppress populations in targeted areas
to reduce damage to agriculture and other resources. APHIS has been
building upon previous successes, such as the 2013 New Mexico feral
swine eradication project. Through this continuing effort, APHIS has
removed feral swine from more than 5.4 million acres in New Mexico.
Another key part of the national program will include surveillance
and disease monitoring to protect the health of our domestic swine.
APHIS is testing feral swine for diseases of concern for U.S. pork
producers, such as classical swine fever, which does not exist in the
United States, as well as swine brucellosis, porcine reproductive and
respiratory syndrome, swine influenza, and pseudorabies. APHIS is
currently establishing procedures for disease monitoring, including the
development of new surveillance and vaccination methods. Ensuring that
diseased feral swine are not a threat to domestic swine keeps U.S.
export markets open.
APHIS is conducting research to develop and evaluate new tools to
further reduce damage inflicted by feral swine. Examples of potential
tools that could dramatically influence the population growth of feral
swine include toxicants and fertility control agents, coupled with safe
delivery systems.
Question. What roles are States playing and how are costs being
shared?
Answer. States will play a critical role in the success of this
program. APHIS established strong partnerships with organizations such
as State Associations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National
Association of State Departments of Agriculture, and the National
Association of State Animal Health Officials. APHIS is collaborating
with other Federal agencies, as well as tribal and local cooperators.
Since environmental conditions and laws governing feral swine vary
considerably among States, APHIS' strategy is to provide resources and
expertise at a national level, while allowing flexibility to manage
operational activities from a local or State perspective. Most States
are developing feral swine task forces to enhance communication among
entities that share a common interest in reducing or eliminating
problems caused by feral swine. APHIS serves on these task forces,
providing guidance on management options and utilizing available
resources.
State, tribal, and local cooperators are providing both financial
resources and in-kind services. In-kind services offered vary among
States, ranging from housing for employees working in remote sites to
supplying helicopters in the aerial program. States also are providing
staff to assist with operational removal of feral swine in joint-
projects. In fiscal year 2014, cooperators have pledged to provide more
than $7 million in funding and more than $1 million via in-kind
services toward reducing problems associated with feral swine.
Question. How will you determine priorities among States with
existing heavy infestations and States with small hog populations in
which elimination is a viable possibility?
Answer. APHIS will establish an operational program in all States
where feral swine are recognized. Estimated populations within States
vary from less than 1,000 feral swine, to more than 750,000 feral
swine. APHIS worked with State Agencies and groups, such as State
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Association of
State Departments of Agriculture, and the National Association of State
Animal Health Officials, to determine the appropriate strategy to
address feral swine in each affected State. Consideration was given to
such things as, estimated State current population, current and future
damage prevented, as well as considering individual State laws and
regulations.
In States where feral swine populations are large and widely
distributed, our goal will be to suppress populations to a manageable
level. At that point, we will work with States to utilize control
methods to ensure agricultural and natural resources remain properly
protected. Additionally, we will utilize funding where there is an
opportunity to eliminate animals from a State or targeted area where
rapid re-establishment is unlikely. As feral swine are eliminated from
targeted areas, APHIS will shift support to increase emphasis in other
areas, while maintaining the capacity to monitor for newly introduced
animals.
program reductions
Question. Mr. Secretary, this budget proposes a reduction of $37
million in APHIS program funding. These reductions are largely focused
on programs that are high Senate priorities. Please explain the
rationale for choosing these programs for reductions.
Answer. The fiscal year 2015 budget proposes reductions to the
Avian Health, Cotton Pests, Plant Protection Methods Development,
Specialty Crop Pests, and Tree and Wood Pests programs. In regard to
the first two programs listed, APHIS and cooperators have made
significant progress in meeting program goals. Because of the level of
surveillance and analysis APHIS has already conducted regarding avian
influenza, APHIS is able to make targeted reductions in the Avian
Health program. Additionally, APHIS has eradicated boll weevil from
99.5 percent of cotton producing land in the United States and is
beginning a series of surveys to confirm that the pink bollworm has
been eradicated. The proposed decrease in the Plant Protection Methods
Development program is for the National Clean Plant Network, for which
Congress provided ongoing funding through the Agricultural Act of 2014.
In regard to the reductions proposed for the Specialty Crop Pests and
Tree and Wood Pests programs, APHIS is continuing its longstanding
effort to balance the contributions of the Federal Government and
cooperators, recognizing that there are national, regional and local
benefits of pest and disease management.
Question. What assurances can you provide that Senate priorities
regarding combating invasive pests and diseases will be honored?
Answer. USDA realizes the importance of these programs, but also
believes that these activities should be a cooperative effort and a
shared responsibility between the Federal Government and the State and
local governments whose people will most directly and immediately
benefit. The Department's budget represents our determination to find
the correct balance in these responsibilities. USDA realizes the
importance of these programs, but also believes that these activities
should be a cooperative effort and a shared responsibility between the
Federal Government and the State and local governments whose people
will most directly and immediately benefit. The Department's budget
represents our determination to find the correct balance in these
responsibilities.
citrus greening
Question. Mr. Secretary, please bring us up to speed on how the $20
million in funds to combat citrus greening are being used and the
prospects for controlling this ruinous disease.
Answer. USDA recognizes the devastating impact citrus greening, or
Huanglongbing (HLB), is having on the Florida citrus industry and the
threat it poses to other citrus-producing States. USDA established the
new Multi-Agency Coordination (MAC) response framework in December 2013
to help address the industry's immediate needs in a more direct way. To
jump start this initiative, USDA provided $1 million to support
projects that can bring practical and near-term solutions to combat the
disease, and Congress also provided $20 million through the Fiscal Year
2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act. In addition to APHIS, the MAC is
comprised of representatives from the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS); the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA); the Risk
Management Agency; the Environmental Protection Agency; State
representatives from Florida, Arizona, California, and Texas; and
industry representatives from Florida, California, and Texas. The HLB
MAC Group's priority is to fund projects that are ready to be taken
from the research arena to the field and used to help growers right
now. The HLB MAC Group has decided to establish two parallel processes
for funding short-term, practical HLB research projects: (1) a direct
funding process and (2) a stakeholder suggestion process.
Direct Funding Process
The HLB MAC Group will develop project proposals for some of the
most promising tools identified by group members, with input from
stakeholders. The MAC Group plans to provide funding for several of
these projects in early May 2014. Examples of the activities that will
be funded include scaling up biological control (using specialized
wasps to control Asian citrus psyllid populations), field testing of
promising anti-microbial treatments against HLB, and field-delivery
systems for using thermal therapy to treat HLB-infected trees.
Stakeholder Suggestion Process
The HLB MAC Group will also use an online suggestion system.
Industry, academia, and State and Federal researchers can submit short-
term, practical solution suggestions for potential funding. The MAC
Group is developing specific criteria for evaluating the suggested
projects, including the stipulation that the tool or technique be ready
to test in the field, implement immediately, or promise to provide a
tool or solution for the industry in the near term. After the MAC Group
reviews the project suggestions to ensure they meet the criteria, a
science panel made up of Federal, academic, and industry experts will
further evaluate them.
The MAC Group is moving as quickly as possible to provide funding
as we know the urgent need for tangible tools to help growers in the
most effective ways. Complementing these near-term, ready-to-implement
solutions the MAC Group is funding, Congress directed at least $125
million over 5 years to establish a research and extension program to
combat citrus diseases and pests under the USDA Specialty Crop Research
Initiative in the Agricultural Act of 2014 (farm bill). This funding,
administered by NIFA and with input from stakeholders, will greatly
expand USDA's ability to combat HLB with new science and technology for
the mid- and long-term. USDA is hopeful that the short-term solutions
funded by the MAC Group will help citrus growers deal with HLB while
longer term solutions are developed.
Question. This budget requests reduced funding to combat citrus
greening. Is this request adequate for the task?
Answer. The reduction proposed for Citrus Health efforts is not
designed to reduce overall funding for the program. The reduction is
part of USDA's longstanding effort to better balance the Federal
portion of the costs of cooperative pest and disease programs that
protect national, local, and industry interests. The budget requests
sufficient funds to address this pest but relies on States and industry
partners to increase their contributions to the program to ensure that
the same level of effort will continue. Additionally, in fiscal year
2014, Congress provided an additional $20 million in 2-year funding for
the USDA Multi-Agency Coordination (MAC) Group related to citrus
greening. The MAC Group will make these funds available in fiscal year
2014 and fiscal year 2015 to help develop field-delivery systems for
promising tools to combat citrus greening.
food safety and inspection service
New Methods of Poultry Slaughter Inspection
Question. Mr. Secretary, what is the current status of implementing
the new poultry inspection processes?
Answer. We are hopeful that the final rule will be published soon
so we may begin implementation.
Question. The Department's position has been that these new
processes would improve food safety. However, we continue to hear
dissenting opinions on this issue. What new information do you have
since our hearing last year, and can you provide additional assurances
that food safety will be improved as a result of these inspection
processes?
Answer. The proposal to modernize inspection allows the Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) to realign the duties of our inspectors
so that they can focus on pathogen prevention and on proven food safety
measures. Under the proposed new system, all FSIS inspection activities
would focus on the critical food safety inspection and verification
tasks, and the quality assurance tasks would be performed by industry.
FSIS would continue to conduct carcass-by-carcass inspection, as
mandated by law. A peer-reviewed risk assessment shows that a system
that provides for increased off-line food safety inspection activities
results in greater compliance with regulations, as well as lower levels
of fecal contamination and equivalent or lower levels of Salmonella
contamination. The risk assessment estimates that this new approach
will prevent at least 5,000 fewer Salmonella and Campylobacter
illnesses each year.
We recognize that there have been concerns expressed about the
proposed rule based on findings in a GAO report about the pilot
program. However, while GAO found that there were limitations in the
Agency's data analysis in evaluating the poultry pilot--the one
significant finding that GAO outlined with respect to the poultry
pilot, GAO acknowledged in their report that FSIS plans to address
these limitations in the final rule. It should be noted that the report
was not an indictment against the poultry slaughter rule (PSR). In
fact, GAO described the pilot project, and the effort to deploy
inspection resources more effectively, as a positive step.
Question. The fiscal year 2015 request assumes implementation of
these processes by the beginning of the fiscal year, and significant
savings during the year. If the process is not implemented by October,
do you plan to submit a budget amendment to ensure that FSIS has
adequate administrative resources for the year?
Answer. At this time we do not plan to submit a budget amendment. A
determination of adequate administrative resources for FSIS would have
to be based on when the final rule for PSR is published and the balance
of remaining appropriations.
inspector shortage
Question. Mr. Secretary, we have been told that USDA's decision to
rely more on temporary inspectors has resulted in an inspector
shortage, which is stressing the entire system. Is this
characterization accurate? Please explain what is going on.
Answer. This characterization is not accurate. Although the Agency
has been hiring temporary inspectors, all positions required to
maintain food safety are being staffed. Meat, poultry and processed egg
facilities legally cannot operate without FSIS inspectors present, and
a shortage of FSIS inspectors would result in reduced production or
facility closures. It is important to note that this has not occurred.
In the course of normal operations there will be unexpected absences
that cause temporary staffing shortfalls until another inspector is in
place. However, no recalls have been due to lack of inspectors on the
job. The Agency maintains a standing corps of permanent and temporary
or relief employees to provide inspection services in the event of
illnesses, vacations, retirements and general scheduling issues. The
Agency is committed to ensuring that we have the staffing, training,
lab support, oversight and other resources that are necessary to ensure
the safety of the food supply.
catfish inspection
Question. Mr. Secretary, as you know both this subcommittee and the
Agriculture Committee are very interested in USDA issuing a new
regulation on catfish inspections. The farm bill requires
implementation within 60 days of enactment. However, your recently
issued report on the status of the regulation indicates you plan to
publish the final rule in December 2014. Please let us know if there is
anything this subcommittee can do to help expedite this process.
Answer. When the proposed rule was published in February 2011, the
Department solicited comments on several options for the definition of
catfish in accordance with the 2008 farm bill, which left the
definition of ``catfish'' open. Now that Congress has determined that
all fish in the order Siluriformes are under FSIS jurisdiction, the
matter is settled. While it is still necessary for a final rule to go
through the necessary Departmental and OMB reviews, that clarification
will help expedite the process towards publishing a final rule. FSIS
estimates that the final rule will be published by December 2014.
office closings and agency reductions
Question. Mr. Secretary, I want to discuss your budget request for
the Farm Service Agency. We all know the important role this Agency has
in helping our farmers and ranchers. When comparing apples to apples,
the budget cuts FSA by nearly $66 million from last year.
Taking this steep reduction and office closures into account, do
you believe now is a good time to be cutting FSA especially when a new
farm bill is being implemented?
Answer. During preparation of the fiscal year 2015 budget, FSA
conducted a review of current county offices and staffing levels, and
found the potential to consolidate approximately 250 field offices.
There are steps that need to be taken to reshape and restructure FSA's
county offices and workforce, however, before FSA can begin preparing
any office consolidation plan. The Agency has not yet identified
specific offices for closure.
Question. How can we reassure our farmers that FSA will be
responsive when there will be fewer personnel and fewer offices open?
Answer. FSA's salaries and expenses budget request reflects USDA's
continued commitment to achieving cost-savings and increased
efficiencies, while continuing to provide farmers and ranchers with the
highest levels of customer service.
FSA is presently working on a service center structure concept that
will realign workforce and invest in improved technology to provide
quality customer service by providing a full range of access to FSA
programs, increased efficiencies through specialization, expanded
customer flexibility and options in program delivery, and serve as a
referral gateway to other agricultural and rural services.
The concept is intended to establish a more flexible footprint in
each State to best utilize staff resources, improve program outreach to
new and current customers and enhance cross training of FSA employees.
The centralization of program service, resulting in generally larger
staffs, will provide managers with greater employee supervision and
oversight, increased opportunities to train employees, and improved
internal controls that ultimately will improve efficiencies in program
delivery and enhance public trust in the Agency.
Question. Do you believe it's reasonable for this Committee to
agree to close offices when we don't even know which offices will be
closed?
Answer. FSA will conduct a study during 2014 to identify areas for
realignment. Until then, no specific offices have been identified for
consolidation, and there is no list of offices under consideration for
consolidation. Before attempting to close any office, USDA is
committed, per statute, to hold public meetings in each affected county
within 30 days of any announcement of pending closure as well as
providing necessary Congressional notifications. However, FSA needs the
flexibility to change its county office structure in the face of
declining resources. Maintaining underutilized offices reduces our
capacity to adequately serve the Nation's farmers and ranchers.
Question. Please provide detailed information regarding USDA's plan
to determine which offices to close, including a proposed timeframe,
and all information that will be considered, including the weight given
to each factor.
Answer. FSA is working to more strategically locate and structure
its workforce, workload, location, office staffing structures, and
customer needs. This approach is not fully developed and information is
not yet available.
midas
Question. Since fiscal year 2009, this subcommittee has spent
roughly $300 million on Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of
Agricultural Systems (MIDAS). While we are committed to modernizing IT
systems of the Department, we are concerned there is no clear direction
for the MIDAS program.
Can you please update us on the status of MIDAS?
Answer. MIDAS is live and deployed nationwide to 9,000 employees
across 2,124 State and county offices to manage 11 million customer
records and 5 million farms with 8.1 million tracts and 38 million
fields. For the first time ever, the system consolidates land and
producer information on one computer screen, which dramatically
improves customer service and FSA processes. MIDAS has improved
customer service by modernizing FSA processes in the county office,
streamlining the process to reconstitute a farm replacing manual
processes with automated workflows, reducing manual handling and paper
tracking, and accelerating the synchronization of Social Security death
notifications, reducing erroneous payments. Our roadmap includes
continued simplification of the IT portfolio, partnering with key USDA
Agencies and teams, and enhancing service delivery.
Question. How will MIDAS be used to implement the new farm bill?
Answer. Because MIDAS is the platform for producer and land
information, FSA is coordinating the capabilities of MIDAS to meet the
timelines for farm bill implementation. For example, MIDAS is in use
today by FSA field office staff supporting producer updates of farm
information required for farm bill program enrollments.
Question. After all this investment, how will MIDAS help our
farmers?
Answer. Prior to MIDAS going live last year, all field offices and
employees had to use multiple systems when serving producers who
visited the county offices. They were required to move between systems
(e.g. on the AS400, the Web systems, mainframe systems, GIS systems,
etc.) to enroll producers into programs. They needed to print farm maps
to work with producers on acreage volumes/content, as well as numerous
manual processes. Along with providing a single view of producer data,
MIDAS allows a producer to conduct their farm management business with
any service center nationwide through a single visualization of the
farm.
Question. The budget proposal includes maintenance funding for
MIDAS. Is additional funding required if MIDAS will be able to, as has
been stated, allow farmers to access USDA programs from their kitchen
table?
Answer. The fiscal year 2015 budget proposes funding for the
continued operations and maintenance of MIDAS, including support for
service desk and application maintenance support, software licensing,
and hosting. The development and maintenance of customer self-service
that will allow farmers and ranchers to access USDA programs over the
Internet is included within a larger portfolio of FSA initiatives aimed
at transforming FSA business processes, service delivery practices, and
information technology tools.
food and nutrition service
Summer EBT Demonstration
Question. The budget is requesting an additional $30 million to
expand the summer EBT (electronic benefit transfer) demonstration
project.
Can you please explain how you intend continue these demonstration
projects?
Answer. USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) implemented the
Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC) at sites in 10
States and Indian tribal organizations which provided the families of
low-income school aged children with benefits similar to the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC),
giving them more resources to use at retail food stores during the
summer months when school was out of session. A rigorous, independent
evaluation of the demonstrations shows impressive results, i.e., that
SEBTC can reduce food insecurity among children substantially. In
addition, participating children in households with SEBTC ate more
fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and dairy foods while consuming
fewer sugar-sweetened beverages. These impacts were present at sites
using the SNAP EBT model and the WIC EBT model.
Based on these encouraging results, FNS is proposing to continue
these demonstration projects in fiscal year 2015, possibly by
capitalizing on the strength of existing sites through further
expanding in the same and adjacent areas as were included in the
original demonstrations, or by testing the model through a full-State
implementation in one or two small States. The information gleaned from
statewide implementation in one or two States would provide important
information on the feasibility of expansion of the pilots--in
particular, whether the WIC EBT model or the SNAP EBT model has a
higher possibility of success in implementation.
Question. Will you be using the WIC EBT model or SNAP EBT model?
Answer. USDA anticipates using both the SNAP and WIC models, and
will make determinations based on an individual State's capacity.
Currently, there are only eight States with statewide WIC EBT systems.
FNS would likely make State selections based on a number of factors,
such as rates of poverty and food insecurity, and Summer Food Service
Program participation. Further, we would use this opportunity to
further examine the efficacy of the WIC and SNAP models, to determine
whether future activities should focus on one model over the other.
wic food package
Question. The budget also includes an increase of $322 million to
implement the new WIC food package.
Can you please describe how these funds will be utilized?
Answer. The $322 million will be obligated for food grants in
fiscal year 2015 as compared to fiscal year 2014. This increase is
comprised of $207 million in new budget authority and about $115
million of carryover from prior years. Approximately $102 million of
the increase in food funding is attributable to normal food inflation.
The remaining $220 million increase is due to improvements in the food
package to increase participants' access to fruits and vegetables,
whole grains and low-fat dairy. The fruit and vegetable cash-value
voucher for children is increased from $6 to $8 per month, the level
recommended by the Institute of Medicine. Yogurt has been added as a
partial milk substitute for children and women. Whole grain and fish
options have been expanded to include pasta products and canned Jack
mackerel, respectively.
These science-based revisions will improve the nutrition and health
of the Nation to fiscal year 2014. This increase is comprised of $207
million in new budget authority and about $115 million of carryover
from prior years.
Question. If this Committee is unable to provide these additional
funds, how would the Department prioritize overall WIC funding?
Answer. We will continue work with the Committee to secure adequate
funding to serve all who are eligible for the program and support the
changes in the WIC food packages. Please note that all State agencies
are required to implement the increase in the cash value voucher by
June 2, 2014, and the budget request reflects the implementation of
that change. The other major changes in the food package provide added
options and flexibilities for State agencies in meeting the nutritional
needs of participants. However, once the funding level is known for
fiscal year 2015, State agencies will need to determine if they are
able to implement the remaining food package improvements based on
their specific food grant.
public law 480, title ii
Question. While I appreciate the budget keeps funding for Public
Law 480 within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, I do have
concerns with your request allowing 25 percent of the emergency funds
to be used for local purchase or cash.
How is providing less U.S. commodities for this important program
better for our farmers?
Answer. When Public Law 480 became law in 1954, Congress was
responding to both international hunger needs and an increasingly
costly Government-held farm surplus commodities program. At the time,
USDA was storing significant quantities of surplus commodities at
considerable cost to the U.S. taxpayers. Donation for international
food assistance was an effective means to dispose of the surplus
commodities. Such surpluses do not exist today.
Given today's market, our food assistance operations need to
balance market realities and food aid needs while also striving to
reduce costs, especially in times of emergencies. With the strength of
commercial agricultural exports, we would not expect substantial
economic impact from the use of up to $350 million of the Public Law
480 title II appropriations in emergencies for interventions such as
local or regional procurement of the agricultural crises, food vouchers
or cash transfers to provide for improved food aid delivery.
The administration's budget request seeks additional steps to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the food aid programs. We
know from the crises in the Philippines, Syria, and Somalia this year
that these flexibilities helped to get food to thousands of families in
need and were critical to our success, especially in the immediate
response.
The administration continues to seek reforms in food aid due to the
importance of these life-saving tools and the potential for cost
savings. Products can be delivered more quickly to recipients, because
the purchase and delivery of U.S. products can take on average between
4 and 6 months, while locally and regionally procured products can
arrive as much as 11-14 weeks sooner. Studies have shown that local and
regional procurements can reduce costs by 25-63 percent in specific
situations. The increased efficiency and cost savings would allow USAID
to reach up to 2 million additional people per year.
Question. Shouldn't we allow the changes made in the farm bill to
happen before we start altering the program again?
Answer. The administration appreciates the additional flexibilities
that the Agricultural Act of 2014 provided for the food aid programs.
The budget request for increases in flexibilities reflects the same
spirit of the farm bill provisions. The intent is to allow for our food
assistance response to meet the need of the emergency whether it is
cash, local procurement, prepositioned U.S. commodities or U.S.
commodities shipped from the United States.
rural development
Question. Mr. Secretary, this subcommittee values the income
generation and job creation opportunities that Rural Development
programs provide in rural America. However, this budget cuts overall
Rural Development (RD) funding by 9 percent in budget authority and
over 4 percent in program levels, compared to fiscal year 2014. Mr.
Secretary, please explain why this budget doesn't focus more on the
residents of rural America.
Answer. This budget continues USDA and Rural Development's
commitment to serving rural America. While some programs see proposed
reductions, others are increased and overall, Rural Development's
portfolio continues to grow, currently standing at just under $200
billion. In a time of fewer resources available across the Federal
Government, this is a time of difficult choices. The funding levels
requested will enable Rural Development to continue to serve
individuals, businesses, and communities throughout rural America. His
proposal builds on RD's foundational support in rural communities.
[The information follows:]
Rural Development's reach to residence of rural America is
significant and will continue under the current budget:
--RD provided home ownership opportunities for 170,000 residents in
2013 (2012: 153 thousand residents).
--RD's community facilities programs provide 5.4 percent (3.1 million
residents), 3.4 percent (1.9 million residents) and 9.3 percent
(5.4 million residents) of rural residents new and/or improved
essential communities facilities in health facilities, public
safety facilities and educational facilities respectively in
2013 (2012: 7.42 percent: health 4.3 million residents; 3.71
percent safety. 2.1 million residents; 6.41 percent
educational, 3.7 million residents).
--Through Rural Utilities Service, RD provided 8.7 million residents
with new and/or improved Electric services in 2013 (2012: 8.3
million residents). RD provided 129,000 residents with new and/
or improved telecommunications and broadband services in 2013
(2012: 63,000 residents). And RD provided 1.8 million residents
with new and/or improved Water services in 2013 (2012: 2.5
million residents).
--Through Rural Business-Cooperative Service, RD created or saved
39,000 jobs through investments in business, entrepreneurship,
cooperatives and industry in 2013 (2012: 52,000 jobs). RD
provided assistance to 2,240 small business and cooperatives in
2013 (2012: 443 small business and cooperatives). RD provided
renewable energy and efficiency opportunities with 14,734
million of kWh of generation (2012: 7,279 million kWh), and
1,379 million gallons of biofuels for rural residents in 2013
(2012: 1,232 million gallons).
RD expects to increase these significant contributions to rural
American residents in the approved 2014 budget fiscal year and with the
2015 fiscal year budget proposal.
rental assistance
Question. Mr. Secretary, this budget includes proposed reforms to
the Rental Assistance program, which provides rent subsidies to the
poorest rural residents served by the Department. Approximately 6,000
rural Arkansas households rely on Rental Assistance to obtain
affordable housing, with about 3,500 of these households being headed
by the elderly. We need to make this program sustainable for the long
term.
Please explain how these reforms will save money while continuing
to protect the most vulnerable rural households.
Answer. The Rental Assistance program provides benefits that enable
low-income Americans in rural communities to enjoy safe, decent and
affordable rental housing. The cost of Rental Assistance has increased
substantially. We are committed to maintaining the program, but
recognize its increasing cost has caused significant budget pressure
for many Rural Development programs. The 2015 budget requests new
authorities to improve the management of the Rental Assistance program
and ensure the long term viability of the program is ensured. Three of
the authorities will provide systemic changes to increase program
integrity and predictability. These changes will ensure that the Rental
Assistance program continues to provide a safety net that assists the
neediest rural residents and ensures the program's long-term
sustainability.
One of the systemic changes to the Rental Assistance program
establishes a minimum rent requirement of $50 per month regardless of
tenant income level. The proposal is similar to the minimum rent
requirement used in HUD affordable rental housing programs. The
proposal includes hardship exemptions for tenants that can demonstrate
they are unable to pay the minimum, and eviction of tenants is
prohibited if they cannot afford to pay the minimum rent. The second
proposal would provide access to income verification through the
National Database of New Hires. The third proposal would change Rental
Assistance agreements so they renew on the 12-month anniversary date of
the agreement, rather than automatic renewal if funding is exhausted
prior to the anniversary date.
Rural Development estimates that the systemic proposals could save
as much as $20 million in 2015. The other two requested authorities
will increase flexibility to manage the program, particularly in times
of reduced budgetary funding or delayed funding under continuing
resolutions. Having flexibility in renewal amounts and timing will
extend the available funding to as many properties as possible during
the reduced funding period.
Question. Under the minimum rent, how many households will see
their rent payments increase?
Answer. The 2015 budget requests the authority to require a minimum
rent payment of $50 per month regardless of tenant income level. The
proposal includes hardship exemptions for tenants that can demonstrate
they are unable to pay the minimum. These hardships may include the
loss of family income due to the termination of employment, termination
of benefits from other programs, or the death of an income earner. The
proposal also prohibits the eviction of tenants if they are financially
unable to pay the minimum rent.
There are currently about 42,000 households that pay between $0 and
$50 per month as their tenant contribution toward the rent payment. The
actual number that would see their tenant contribution increase to $50
per month would depend on the number of exemptions approved.
Question. How much will these reforms save?
Answer. The budget assumes that minimum rent and eliminating
automatic renewals will save approximately $20 million in fiscal year
2015. The savings estimated could decrease depending on the households
that could be exempted from paying the minimum rent. Additional savings
can be achieved in the future as all expiring contracts are renewed
Access to the National Directory of New Hires database will assist in
maintaining a low improper payments rate and reduce the amount of
subsidy. The other reforms will provide program flexibility in times of
reduced funding: ``partial year funding'' and selective renewals both
will enable the program to utilize available funds to the maximum
extent possible and will not provide savings.
Question. Are you considering other reforms to further increase
savings and improve program management?
Answer. RD has reached out to stakeholders to discuss the future
sustainability of the Rental Assistance program and has solicited input
in developing a long-term plan. Discussions have centered on how to
determine if properties continue to meet the mission of providing low
income rural residents with assistance. Rural Development has also
asked about potential alternatives to improve the predictability of the
program's funding needs, as RD proposes to achieve through the proposal
to only fund Rental Assistance agreements once a year, on their 12-
month anniversary date.
direct single family housing loan program
Question. Mr. Secretary, the direct single family housing loan
program has been the flagship housing program in this Department for
years. Very low- and low-income rural households are provided
homeownership opportunities with no down payment and low interest
rates. This is the most efficient Federal homeownership program of its
type, with its portfolio credit quality at least matching FHA and VA,
and far exceeding the commercial subprime market.
This budget cuts this program by 60 percent from the fiscal year
2014 level, reducing the loan level from $900 million to $360 million.
Mr. Secretary, we rejected this proposal in fiscal year 2014. Why
are you bringing it up again, so soon?
Answer. The Department acknowledges the importance of the Section
502 Direct Loan program in providing the only way for many low- and
very low-income families an opportunity to attain homeownership in
rural America. Our budget authority request for fiscal year 2015 has
actually increased from $24 million provided last year to $27 million;
however the subsidy rate has also increased due to cost of borrowing
for the Federal Government and additional subsidy provided to the
borrower thereby causing a decrease in program level. With continued
low interest rates and the increased use of our guaranteed program, we
project at that about 43,000 of low- and very low-income rural families
will be served with guarantees of loans from participating lenders.
Last year, about 22 percent of our nearly 163,000 guarantees went to
low-income families and 4 percent to very low-income families. The
Single Family Direct loan program request will still assure families
participating in Self-Help housing and those with greater needs will
have access to credit to own their own homes.
Question. Is there any other Federal homeownership program that can
help families the way that Section 502 does? If not, where will these
families go to get housing assistance?
Answer. Single Family Housing Direct Loan program plays an
important role in meeting USDA's commitment to improving the economic
vitality and quality of life in rural America. It is anticipated that
at the fiscal year 2015 proposed funding level of $360 million for
Section 502 approximately 2,900 low- and very low-income families will
achieve homeownership.
USDA also intends to continue developing partnerships with
qualified nonprofit organizations in rural areas to deliver program
funds where they are needed most. These partnerships occur with our
field offices and local nonprofits. We are also establishing a
certified loan packager program where trained nonprofit staff would
assure program funds go to those who lack other housing opportunities.
We recognize that families living in more rural, poorer communities
have difficulties accessing programs and services that promote long-
term wealth. The Department anticipates that the assistance from
nonprofit groups will provide targeted delivery of program funds to the
most economically distressed and lower income communities.
Question. What is the current backlog of Section 502 applications?
Answer. [The information follows:]
DIRECT 502 LOAN PROGRAM PENDING REQUESTS THROUGH 30-SEP-2012, 30-SEP-
2013, 26-MAR-2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report date Number pending Requested amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30-Sep-12........................... 10,430 $1,305,987,908
30-Sep-13........................... 7,826 978,056,660
26-Mar-14........................... 7,386 917,123,159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These numbers represent the number of unprocessed applications on-
hand and the estimated amount of the requests, including any
applications carried over from previous years. Upon notification of
processing, applicants must update information as needed or the request
is withdrawn.
Question. A $360 million program level would only fund 60 loans in
each State. How would you allocate such a small program in the face of
huge demand in rural areas?
Answer. With a program level of $360 million funds will be
allocated to the States using the current allocation formula found in
Rural Development Instruction 1940-L, which utilize a number of
criteria, including: State substandard households; population areas
less than 2,500; rural population; rural households between 50 and 80
percent of the area Median Household Income (MHI); and households below
50 percent of the area MHI. If it is determined that program objectives
cannot be met using the formula allocation an administrative allocation
could be substituted. An administrative allocation per 1940-L guidance
would provide greater flexibility to direct limited funds to assure the
funds best meet the intent of the program. Greater priority could be
given to Self-Help participants and those most in need of this
assistance, such as to remote areas and to underserved groups.
water and waste disposal loan and grant program
Question. The Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program
provides loan/grant combinations to remote, low-income rural
communities. Lower income communities receive a larger grant share,
while higher income communities are required to rely more heavily on
loans. Mr. Secretary, this budget cuts Water and Waste grants by almost
$150 million.
With this cut, how will the poorest and most remote rural
communities afford the investments they need to provide residents with
clean water and sanitary waste disposal?
Answer. Rural Development is committed to continuing to serve small
and economically challenged rural communities. The majority of the
funds issued through the Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant
program are loans. In most years the program maintains a 70-percent
loan to 30-percent grant ratio as directed by appropriations. Through a
scoring system and strict underwriting the program has been successful
in ensuring that small rural communities have access to funding. In
2013, 46 percent of the projects funded served populations of 1,500 or
more and 70 percent of the projects funded were to serve populations of
2,500 or fewer.
The reduced subsidy rate on our loan portfolio, combined with the
low interest rates will make loans more affordable for many
communities. This will allow Rural Development to ensure that grants
are reserved for the smallest, most economically challenged
communities. We will also make use of our Special Evaluation Assistance
for Rural Communities and Households (SEARCH) program, to provide
grants for predevelopment, planning, design assistance and technical
assistance for financially distressed communities with 2,500 or fewer
residents. In addition, we will continue to partner with other State
and local programs to fund projects requiring grants. In cases where
sufficient grant funding for a project is not available, we will work
with communities to consider other alternatives, such as phasing of
projects.
Question. Mr. Secretary, was this proposal included simply to take
advantage of the $150 million in mandatory funding that the recently
passed farm bill provides for this program?
Answer. No. The mandatory funding provided in the Agricultural Act
of 2014 to address the backlog of applications will allow Rural
Development to provide assistance to more rural communities needing
grant to construct water and waste infrastructure and to maintain
affordable rates for the customers they serve. In April 2014, USDA will
announce funding for projects. The funding will include the $150
million in 2014 mandatory farm bill grants, partnered with loan and
grant funding made available in the fiscal year 2014 appropriations.
rural corps
Question. Mr. Secretary, this budget proposes to hire 150 economic
development experts to pilot a new initiative, the Rural Corps, to
deliver development expertise to disadvantaged rural areas. Ten rural
areas will be selected to participate in the pilot.
Please describe how this pilot initiative will operate.
Answer. To clarify, the budget proposes 250 additional staff years.
Of this total, approximately 100 would fill portfolio management and
other core functions in the national office. The remaining 150 staff
would be located in the field. Of the 150 placed in the field, about 50
would be part of the proposed 21st century workforce pilot called Rural
Corps.
Question. What exactly will the pilot be testing?
Answer. [The information follows:]
This pilot would test ways of:
--a. Serving high-need areas, like the Delta, Appalachia, the
Southwest border, and Indian country.
--b. Modernizing Rural Development's field structure to suit a 21st
century workforce and to reflect the changing dynamics of rural
America, new technology, and the deep challenges in areas of
persistent poverty.
--c. Leveraging Federal investments through increased coordination
among Federal, State, local, private, and nonprofit partners;
and
--d. Building a modern workforce that is mobile, flexible,
responsive, outcome-oriented and accountable.
Question. How will the 10 pilot areas be chosen?
Answer. Rural Development will identify pilot areas first by
characterizing the pool of communities with greatest demonstrated need
defined as high poverty and low capacity for economic development.
Rural Development will then select specific pilot areas applying
preference for geographic and other forms of diversity in order to best
apply learnings from the pilot to potential future delivery of RD
programs.
Question. How will you measure success or failure?
Answer. [The information follows:]
In reviewing our efforts to reach new people and organizations we
will measure:
--Number of applications received in pilot vs. comparable non-pilot
areas;
--Portion of applications awarded in pilot vs. comparable non-pilot
areas;
--Number of new contacts and partnerships built vs. comparable non-
pilot areas;
--Non-Federal dollars leveraged in pilot vs. non-pilot areas;
--Periodic surveys of staff and partner organizations in pilot vs.
non-pilot areas; and
--Mapping and tracking of where Rural Development investments are
made.
Question. Doesn't 150 staff seem like a very high density of
experts to be focused on only 10 areas? That would be 15 staff per
area.
Answer. The proposed pilot requests no more than 50 staff in 10
pilot locations with up to 5 staff per area.
Question. This new staff would deliver technical assistance and
coordinate and leverage resources from all Federal agencies. How do
these responsibilities differ from responsibilities of current Rural
Development employees?
Answer. While there are exceptions, most Rural Development staff
that to work in State, area, and field offices are hired for a very
specific and relatively limited and inflexible set of duties. In many
offices more than 50 percent--60 percent of staff work specifically and
exclusively on Rural Housing Service loans, loan guarantees, and Multi-
Family housing programs. In a State with 50-60 employees, this means
approximately 30 people who do housing work, 10 run Rural Development's
other programs including community facilities, water/wastewater,
business, energy. Add in administrative staff, an engineer, an
architect, someone to do Human resources work, a public information
coordinator and that's a full team.
To better serve and meet the needs of rural communities and to do
more to support locally identified economic development priorities,
staff who are part of Rural Corps would be selected for a different and
broader skill set. For example, Rural Corps staff might be selected for
expertise in community planning or economic development, and be cross-
trained to understand resources and opportunities across USDA and
across the Federal Government, as well as in the State and region where
they work.
department initiatives
Strikeforce Initiative
Question. Mr. Secretary, please describe some of the successes the
StrikeForce initiative, and lessons learned to date.
Answer. Since 2010 through the StrikeForce for Rural Growth and
Opportunity Initiative, USDA has partnered with more than 400 community
organizations, businesses, foundations, universities and other groups
to support greater than 80,300 projects and ushered more than $9.7
billion in investment in rural America. Because of StrikeForce efforts,
USDA is improving access to capital, markets, healthy, affordable
foods, electricity, broadband and water, increasing homeownership
opportunities, and overall, improving the quality of life for rural
families in areas of persistent poverty.
For example, in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, members of
farmers' agricultural cooperatives are now providing locally grown
peas, greens and watermelons to national grocery chains for sale in
selected stores. They have received direct and indirect assistance from
USDA, as well as support from their 1890s land-grant universities.
Also in Arkansas, our partnership with the Arkansas Delta Seeds of
Change Coalition of 40 different organizations helped to create five
new farmers markets in southeast Arkansas and the first summer feeding
program using locally grown produce (in Forrest City). They are now
seeking to expand farm to school opportunities in multiple school
districts.
In New Mexico, USDA finalized 75 home loans and grants to families
living in the colonias communities of Luna, Hidalgo, and Dona Ana
counties along the United States-Mexico border in 2013--a 30-percent
increase from the 2012 fiscal year.
In South Dakota, USDA helped to create the South Dakota Indian
Business Alliance and the South Dakota Native Homeownership Coalition
with the Governor's office, other Federal agencies and private funding.
In the poorest county in the country, the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe just
began work with another organization to assist with rural housing loan
applications to increase the success in improving houses on the
reservation.
Question. Do you have plans to continue to expand the initiative?
Answer. StrikeForce now operates in almost 800 rural counties,
parishes, boroughs, tribal reservations and colonias in 20 States.
Because of the success of StrikeForce in these States, numerous States
are requesting to be included as official StrikeForce States. At their
request, StrikeForce State coordinators are providing briefings and
materials that explain the approach of the initiative. We will consider
adding new States, as has happened every year since inception.
Question. How are you tracking and measuring success?
Answer. StrikeForce success is measured by the increase in program
participation in the persistent poverty communities designated as
StrikeForce areas (more than 20 percent poverty over 30 years).
Increases in applications, eligible applications, loans, grants,
contracts and outreach meetings are all StrikeForce performance
indicators. Participation by socially disadvantaged, limited resource
producers, women and beginning farmers and increases in local and
regional food systems are also performance indicators measured by
StrikeForce. These indicators are tracked and reported throughout the
year across various USDA agencies.
In 2013, the Natural Resources Conservation Service saw
applications in StrikeForce areas increase 82 percent and the Farm
Service Agency had a 14-percent increase over the year before. In the
three original pilot States (Arkansas, Georgia, and Mississippi),
program applications have increased 76 percent since 2010.
Question. Isn't the proposed Rural Corps initiative duplicative of
the StrikeForce initiative? Please explain the differences.
Answer. StrikeForce is an outreach and partnership initiative that
uses existing USDA personnel to raise awareness of, and break down
barriers to participation, in all USDA programs in the poorest parts of
20 States. The participating USDA staff are not trained economic
development professionals, as proposed under the Rural Corps. By
working with communities and organizations, StrikeForce seeks to assist
through available USDA resources, which includes Rural Development as
well as all the Service Center agencies (FSA and NRCS), as well as
other USDA agencies. Rural Corps would be able to draw on Rural
Development resources and public and private resources to expand the
capacity to assist these rural areas of concentrated poverty.
promise zone initiative
Question. Mr. Secretary, will you please describe the
administration's Promise Zone initiative?
Answer. Under the Promise Zones initiative, and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development and USDA are partnering with high-poverty
urban, rural, and tribal communities to create jobs, increase economic
activity, improve educational opportunities, leverage private
investment, and reduce violent crime. The Promise Zones will benefit
from a comprehensive approach to development that will enhance and
connect local assets ranging from schools to housing to jobs.
The first five Promise Zones are in San Antonio, Philadelphia, Los
Angeles, southeastern Kentucky, and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. A
second round of Promise Zones selections will begin fall 2014 and will
be announced Spring 2015.
The Promise Zones designation commits the Federal Government to
partner with local leaders who are addressing multiple community
revitalization challenges with on-the-ground technical assistance to
help navigate Federal programs and regulations. This intensive
engagement will help communities make the most of funding already
available.
The participating agencies will be working with selected Promise
Zones to improve the coordination among Federal resources to enhance
place-based strategies and increase the progress of community
revitalization initiatives. As outcomes are achieved and best practices
are developed, Federal agencies will apply that learning in the
delivery of Federal funding and services to other communities working
toward similar goals.
Question. How were the two rural Promise Zones selected?
Answer. The first round of Promise Zone designations was made in
January 2014. In this first round, only communities that had previously
received Federal support from a certain set of selected programs
(Promise Neighborhoods, Stronger Economies Together, Sustainable
Communities, Rural Jobs Accelerator, etc.) were eligible to apply.
These communities had demonstrated their capacity in one area of the
Promise Zones work and have already demonstrated their preparedness to
broaden their efforts to additional revitalization priorities.
In the next cycle, all high-poverty communities that meet the
eligibility requirements will be able to apply.
Applications were scored according to the selection criteria and
points set forth in the final Application Guide for the appropriate
category of Promise Zone (urban, rural, or tribal).
In order to be selected, an application must have scored a total of
75 points or more. Once scored, applications were ranked competitively
within each of the three Promise Zone categories. Rural applications
were ranked against other rural applications, tribal applications were
ranked against other tribal applications, and urban applications were
ranked against other urban applications.
An inter-agency team led by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ran
the selection process for 2013, with USDA co-leading the rural and
tribal selections. The Departments of Education, Justice and Health and
Human Services participated as reviewers and provided input on the
application materials.
Question. How will you track and measure success in these zones?
Answer. USDA will measure and track success with two processes.
First, USDA will work with Promise Zone designees, HUD, and the other
Federal agency partners to track Federal and private-sector activities
and investments that occur in the Promise Zones. In addition, the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will lead a rigorous
external evaluation to assess the outcomes of creating jobs, increasing
economic activity, improving educational opportunities, and reducing
violent crime in the Promise Zones. Both of these processes will be
supported by the commitment that all Promise Zone designees have made
to tracking progress and sharing data across their community partners
(private-sector, nonprofits, Federal, State, and local agencies, etc.).
This will help all partners work towards improvement and
accountability.
Question. How does the Promise Zone program differ from the
Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community program of some years ago?
Answer. The Promise Zones Initiative has several key components
that were absent in the Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community program.
The first is the role of Promise Zone lead applicants as the backbone
organization with leadership responsibility and authority. The second
is the engagement of high-level officials from across the partner
agencies who can help create smart and fast solutions to delays or
issues that may arise for Promise Zone designees. Lastly, the
initiative does not include an influx of significant grant dollars.
made in rural america initiative
Question. Mr. Secretary, the President recently announced the Made
in Rural America export and investment initiative. Will you please
explain and discuss this new initiative?
Answer. The Made in Rural America export and investment initiative
was established by the President in February 2014, with the goal of
bringing together Federal partners to help rural businesses take
advantage of export opportunities within the Federal Government. The
President believes that exporting is a key opportunity for American
businesses to expand and improve, and that access to Federal resources
currently underutilized by businesses in rural America should be made
more readily available. I strongly echo that belief, and have increased
access to programs facilitating exports a priority in 2014. The
President tasked the White House Rural Council, in coordination with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Commerce,
the Small Business Administration, the Export-Import Bank, the Office
of the United States Trade Representative, and other agencies, to
commit to connecting more rural businesses with resources that can help
them in all phases of the export process, including beginning
exporting, expanding current exporting operations, and accessing new
customers in foreign markets. Federal agencies involved in the
promotion of export resources will provide assistance to help rural
businesses and leaders take advantage of new investment opportunities
and access program information and resources from all across the
Federal Government.
[The information follows:]
The Made in Rural America initiative sets out to do this by laying
out a comprehensive strategy focusing on the following initial
objectives:
--Host five Made in Rural America regional forums dedicated to
promoting rural exports;
--Convene an Investing in Rural America conference later this year to
connect major investors with rural business leaders, high-level
Government officials, economic development experts, and other
partners;
--Host training sessions to equip local USDA Rural Development staff
in all 50 States plus territories with the tools they need to
counsel businesses on export opportunities and resources;
--Provide enhanced export counseling for rural businesses to connect
with foreign buyers through the Department of Commerce's U.S.
Export Assistance Center trade specialists in over 100 domestic
locations and in collaboration with USDA's field staff;
--Coordinate across the administration to promote rural-produced
goods and services at trade events including trade missions,
buyer programs, trade shows, and other promotion programs;
--Educate local leaders across the country on the importance of rural
exports in partnership with NACo and through the Trade
Promotion Coordinating Committee;
--Use the BusinessUSA online platform to better connect rural
businesses with export and investment resources and coordinate
support from across the Federal Government.
Question. What do you estimate the administrative costs to USDA to
be for this initiative?
Answer. Administrative costs are expected to be minimal and no
further funds are expected to be needed, due largely to the partnership
between the agencies involved and the shared nature of costs.
Question. Do you have estimates on the job creation, income
generation, and export enhancement benefits the initiative will foster?
Answer. Estimates for job creation, income generation, and export
enhancement have not been developed, but appropriate metrics are being
developed to measure the impact the initiative will have.
Question. How long is the initiative planned to last?
Answer. The Made in Rural America initiative has been implemented
with the intent of increasing rural businesses' access to Federal
programs and opportunities that can help connect them with investment
opportunities and expand their reach to markets abroad. This will be an
ongoing area of focus for the partners involved. The specific actions
announced by the White House in February 2014 are expected to be
delivered within 9 months from the time of the announcement of the
initiative.
biotechnology
Question. I understand and appreciate the work the Department has
been doing to try to make deregulation decisions on biotech products in
a more timely fashion. Secretary Vilsack has stated that USDA has
reduced the time it takes to deregulate a biotechnology-derived
agricultural product by roughly 360 days. In reviewing data from APHIS-
BRS, that reference appears to apply to only one product, which was
deregulated in 658 days.
BRS's figures show that it took USDA, on average, almost 900 days
to make deregulation decisions on the eight products approved in 2013,
with a range of 650 days to 1,366 days. However, Federal regulations
require USDA to actually make a final decision within 6 months (180
days) after companies submit a petition for deregulation.
Can you help us better understand what further improvements will be
implemented at USDA to ensure ag-biotech products are reviewed and
deregulation decisions are made in a timely and predictable?
Answer. In November 2011, USDA announced improvements to its
process to grant nonregulated status for genetically engineered
organisms, and published the implementation of this process in a
Federal Register notice in March 2012. The goal of these efforts was to
significantly decrease the length and variability of the process
without compromising the quality of the analyses that support our
decisions. Our process improvement analysis revealed an estimated
timeline of 13-15 months is required to conduct quality analysis to
support our decisions and protect plant health. Additional information
is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
Prior to implementing our process improvements in March 2012, USDA
had a backlog of 23 petitions. The average completion time for
petitions prior to this announcement was nearly 3 years (1,034 days).
USDA transitioned 12 in-process petitions into the improved process.
Since our announcement, USDA has also received 10 new petitions that
are also following the improved process.
USDA reduced its backlog from 23 petitions to 7 petitions. The
Department currently has 16 petitions in review. Of those 16 in review,
9 of the petitions are in the new process and 7 are dependent on the
preparation of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). Only one
petition currently under review, not requiring an EIS, is part of the
backlog. Petitions that require preparation of an EIS, take longer to
complete nevertheless we have aggressive schedules to complete them.
USDA expects to complete the remaining backlogged petitions in fiscal
year 2015. Completion timelines will continue to decrease as the
backlog is cleared.
The improved petition process includes five major phases. Though we
have not yet reached our overall timeline targets for completing
petitions, we have made significant progress in decreasing timelines
for multiple phases of the petition process.
--1. Review of nine petitions for completeness resulted in an average
time savings of 257 days (8.5 months).
--2. Publication of the petition for 60-day public comment occurred
for 16 petitions.
--3. Preparation of 12 plant pest risk assessments (PPRA) resulted in
an average time savings of 53 days.
--4. Preparation of 10 environmental assessments (EA) in an average
of 267 days (target = 180 days). USDA expects completion times
to decline towards the 180 day target as the backlog is
cleared. USDA has prepared 10 EAs under the new process. USDA
had recently improved the EA-preparation process, and since
2005 was completing them in an average of 213 days. The present
slow-down is attributed to the large petition backlog moving
nearly synchronously through the EA-drafting phase; USDA
expects completion times to decline towards the 180 day target
as the backlog is cleared.
--5. Publication of PPRAs and EAs has two possible paths:
--Path 1.--This path is for petitions involving genetically
engineered (GE) organisms that raise no substantive new
issues. USDA publishes the PPRA and EA for a 30-day public
review in the Federal Register with a preliminary
determination. The target timeline for Path 1 petitions is
just shy of 14 months (420 days).
Five petitions completed Path 1 in an average of 798 days. Two of
these petitions were the first to go from start to finish
under the improved process, and they completed the process
in 658 days (1.8 years), about a year faster than the old
process.
--Path 2.--This path is for petitions involving GE organisms that
raise substantive new issues. USDA publishes the PPRA and
EA for 30-day public comment in the Federal Register,
revises the documents based upon public input, then
publishes a final PPRA, EA and determination in the Federal
Register. The target timeline for Path 2 petitions is about
15 months (460 days). Two petitions transitioned into the
improved process completed Path 2 in 1,364 days. To date,
no petitions completed Path 2 from start to finish.
Question. Is there a role for Congress in helping to improve
predictability so that farmers continue to gain access to the best
tools in a timely way?
Answer. USDA appreciates the efforts of Congress to provide the
necessary resources to USDA's biotechnology program and its continuing
efforts to oversee certain genetically engineered (GE) organisms that
might pose a risk to plant health. The level requested in the
President's fiscal year 2015 budget proposal for biotechnology
regulatory services will provide sufficient funding to meet the new
process timelines.
Question. The subcommittee also notes, in December 2013, at USDA's
annual stakeholder public meeting, the Department promised to eliminate
the current backlog of 16 biotech petitions by the end of 2014. At the
same meeting in 2011, USDA committed to eliminating the backlog of 22
petitions in ``about a year.'' In 2 years, USDA was able to decrease
the backlog by only six petitions.
How does USDA intent to accomplish its goal of clearing the backlog
by the end of 2014?
Answer. Prior to process improvement implementation in March 2012,
USDA had a backlog of 23 petitions. Since implementation, USDA has also
received 10 new petitions that also follow the improved process. USDA
has reduced its backlog from 23 petitions to 7, while also managing 10
new petitions since implementation. USDA expects to complete the
remaining backlogged petitions in early 2015. Completion timelines will
continue to decrease as the backlog is cleared. Though we have not yet
reached our overall timeline targets, we have made significant progress
in decreasing timelines. For example, complete reviews have decreased
from 324 days to 67 days; and plant pest risk assessment preparation
has decreased from 143 days to 90 days. We remain committed to meeting
the target timelines.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
drought
Question. I want to extend my thanks and gratitude for your efforts
in assisting California farmers, ranchers, communities, and citizens
with our historic and unprecedented drought disaster.
I have no greater priority than leveraging all available resources
to conserve and maximize water within California, and to help my State
and its agriculture industry mitigate the impacts of worsening drought
conditions.
In just my State alone, the California Farm Bureau estimates that
500,000 acres of farmland will go fallow. It is also my understanding
that an estimated 100,000 head of cattle will be lost from my State's
herds. The California Department of Public Health has estimated that 17
rural communities are already at risk of running out of drinking water,
and it is clear that drought conditions will continue to worsen over
the coming months since there is little chance of significant rain
beginning this summer.
How does the Department plan to target conservation programs and
other resources to safeguard lives, maintain the drinking water
supplies of rural communities, and help farmers conserve water and save
their crops, especially permanent crops?
Answer. USDA is exploring every avenue of assistance through its
programs to address the drought and its impacts. Since 2012, USDA has
focused more than $78 million of its Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) conservation program assistance in States with extreme
or exceptional drought to assist producers with mitigation efforts. Of
these efforts in fiscal year 2014, USDA has made $25 million available
through the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) to help
California agricultural operators use water more efficiently, stabilize
fallow cropland, and protect their agricultural lands for future use.
Funds are available statewide to install a number of conservation
practices including irrigation efficiency, cover crops, rehabilitation
of existing spring developments, protection of grazing lands, and other
supporting components.
In addition to California, USDA provided $10 million of EQIP funds
for drought recovery in Nevada, Idaho, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, New
Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma. These funds will implement long-term
strategies for conservation practices to mitigate the effects of future
droughts. Providing this targeted funding allows States to prioritize
drought mitigation activities through their locally led process.
Beginning October 1, 2013, the Emergency Assistance for Livestock,
Honeybees and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP) assists livestock
producers in recovering losses resulting from the additional cost of
transporting water to livestock due to an eligible drought. The cost of
transporting water includes costs associated with water transport
equipment fees, labor, and contracted water transporting fees.
The Department has participated in informational drought meetings
throughout California that are sponsored by the California Department
of Food and Agriculture. We are diligently addressing questions from
growers, insurance companies, industry groups, the Farm Bureau, and
other interested parties on the impact of water availability. We have
provided explanations of crop insurance policy coverage and prevented
planting provisions. As a result of significant concern over saving
perennial crops, the Department has provided information that allows
producers to consider options to mitigate the impacts of drought
without jeopardizing their insurance coverage.
Rural Development is actively working with impacted communities in
California to determine potential assistance. Through the Water and
Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program, loans and grants for immediate
and longer term infrastructure solutions can be provided to communities
with populations of 10,000 or fewer to provide safe water and deal with
waste water.
The Agency can also provide funding thru the Emergency Community
Water Assistance Grant (ECWAG). In January 2014, USDA Rural Development
launched a new simplified process for the ECWAG program. The new
process will reduce the filing burden on eligible applicants and
improve the Rural Development's ability to deliver assistance to
effected areas more quickly.
Currently, 19 impacted communities have expressed interest in our
ECWAG Program. The California Rural Development Office is working with
these communities on application requirements, reviewing submitted
applications and utilizing the new simplified ECWAG process wherever
possible.
In addition, USDA Rural Development Water and Waste Circuit Riders
are available to impacted communities to provide technical assistance
and support as they identify needs and explore solutions.
food safety
Question. Mr. Secretary, I am deeply concerned about the increasing
food safety risk from Salmonella and Campylobacter. As you are aware,
an ongoing outbreak linked to poultry facilities in California has
sickened 481 consumers. It is my understanding that there are more
cases that may be linked to this outbreak, according to the Centers for
Disease Control.
According to testing done by the Food Safety and Inspection Service
during 2012 in processing facilities; approximately 26 percent of
chicken parts tested positive for Salmonella and 21 percent tested
positive for Campylobacter.
Testing by the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System
of retail meat in California in 2011 found that 71.7 percent of chicken
breasts tested positive for Campylobacter. This disturbingly high rate
has remained essentially the same since this testing began in 2002.
I am deeply disturbed by the fact that we have not made progress
over the last 10 years in reducing the number of illnesses and deaths
attributed to Salmonella and Campylobacter.
Mr. Secretary, your Acting Under Secretary of Food Safety, Brian
Ronholm, told me your Department will create a new Salmonella standard
for poultry parts by the end of September and a revised Salmonella
standard for ground chicken by the end of the year. I sincerely hope
that they will be strong enough to result in a significant decrease in
the number of foodborne illnesses linked to this pathogen.
I am deeply concerned your Department has no timeline for when it
will develop Campylobacter standards for these products. When
specifically will you create Campylobacter standards for poultry parts
and ground chicken?
Answer. In May 2010, FSIS announced performance standards for
Campylobacter in turkey and young chickens. The Agency issued a Federal
Register notice for not-ready-to-eat (NRTE) ground or otherwise
comminuted chicken and turkey products in December 2012. This notice
announces FSIS will conduct Campylobacter testing from samples taken
from establishments producing these products and also announces FSIS'
intention to develop new Campylobacter performance standards for these
products. Efforts are underway toward gathering data and other
information so that next steps on reducing Campylobacter prevalence can
be determined. Once these steps are completed it will allow us to
provide a more specific timeline.
Question. Mr. Secretary, I applaud your Agency's actions in 2012 to
declare six additional deadly strains of E. coli as adulterants in
meat. These bacteria presented a clear and present public health
threat, and your Agency took a zero-tolerance stance against them.
I am also gravely concerned that multi-drug resistant strains of
Salmonella are equally deadly and should also be addressed with a zero-
tolerance standard.
There have been three multi-State outbreaks of multi-drug resistant
Salmonella associated with poultry products since 2011, causing 751
known illnesses and 1 death. According to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, only 5 percent of Salmonella cases are part of
recognized outbreaks. Therefore, these highly visible outbreaks may
only represent the tip of the iceberg.
What is deeply disturbing to me about the multi-drug resistant
Salmonella strains is that they are often resistant to medically
important antibiotics. These multi-drug resistant strains have caused
alarmingly high rates of hospitalizations and blood infections compared
to what is normally expected with human cases of Salmonella.
This is why I wrote to you this past fall, urging you to take a
stronger regulatory stance against these strains because they represent
a greater public health risk. Based on your response, it is my
understanding you do not believe your Department has the authority to
do so.
Mr. Secretary, what actions can your Department currently take to
combat multi-drug resistant Salmonella strains?
Answer. In the fiscal year 2015 budget, there is funding for
collaborative work with Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) Centers for Veterinary Medicine, as well as
sister USDA Agencies including Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and
other departments to better understand the source, distribution and
genetic evolution of antimicrobial resistant strains encompassing the
entire transmission chain. FDA has the biggest role in combating these
types of strains, but USDA absolutely sees ourselves as part of the
solution and cooperates with our sister agencies to that end. In the
Salmonella Action Plan, FSIS outlines several actions it will take to
drive innovation that will lower Salmonella contamination rates,
including establishing new performance standards; developing new
strategies for inspection throughout the full farm-to-table continuum;
addressing all potential sources of Salmonella; and focusing the FSIS
education and outreach tools on Salmonella. The action plan also
involves enhancing Salmonella sampling and testing programs to ensure
they factor in the latest scientific information available and account
for emerging trends in foodborne illness.
Question. Do you believe USDA needs additional authority to better
protect the public from multi-drug resistant Salmonella?
Answer. Under relevant case law, Salmonella is not considered an
adulterant, but using the existing legal framework, FSIS has
established situations in which food that is contaminated with
Salmonella is considered to be adulterated. FSIS is always adapting
regulatory strategies to maximize their public health benefit. For
instance, while FSIS has reduced the national average of Salmonella on
young chicken carcasses during the past decade, our experience this
past year with the Salmonella outbreak associated with Foster Farms
poultry products reinforces the need to control this pathogen on
chicken parts. A recently completed baseline survey found the national
average of Salmonella on chicken parts to be approximately 24 percent.
FSIS believes setting a performance standard for chicken parts will
help reduce consumer exposure to Salmonella. Frequent presence of
Salmonella in a product may indicate that the production process is not
adequately controlled, and in situations like this, food that is
contaminated with Salmonella is considered to be adulterated. In these
instances, the Agency has the authority to close an establishment for
failing to produce safe food and to keep it closed until adequate
control measures are in place. The Agency has exercised this approach
when supported by evidence that the facility in question was producing
a product that was injurious to health.
Question. Mr. Secretary, the Centers for Disease Control reports
that our food safety system has not made progress in the last decade in
reducing the number of illnesses and deaths caused by Salmonella. The
CDC also reports that poultry products remain the most common commodity
associated with foodborne outbreaks and the most common source of
Salmonella.
Mr. Secretary, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service runs
the National Poultry Improvement Program, which tests for Salmonella
strains that are important to the health of live poultry. The program
also tests for a strain that causes illnesses associated with eggs.
However, the National Poultry Improvement Program has not focused
on testing for Salmonella strains that cause foodborne illness in
humans, such as Salmonella Heidelberg, the strain implicated in recent
outbreaks.
Mr. Secretary, what additional actions can your Department take
regarding poultry farms to help reduce the incidence of Salmonella
strains that cause foodborne illness in humans?
Answer. The Department has identified Salmonella as a top priority
for FSIS in the 2011-2016 Strategic Plan. To remain on target, the
Agency convened a working group, which developed a Salmonella Action
Plan to itemize specific innovations to reduce Salmonella contamination
rates in meat and poultry products. The Agency's authority starts at
the establishment, not at the farms. However, FSIS works with its
sister agencies, the Food and Drug Administration and Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to reduce the prevalence of foodborne
illness. In order to help decrease the prevalence of Salmonella on
FSIS-regulated products at pre-harvest, the Agency will develop a
document summarizing the lessons learned from previous poultry and beef
pre-harvest meetings, and lessons incorporated into FSIS policies. The
Agency will also continue to work with industry members on specific
outbreaks to identify best practices and organize and host pre-harvest
poultry meetings to inform future multi-agency Government policy or
best practice guidelines.
antibiotic use
Question. Mr. Secretary, I have become very concerned about the
overreliance on antibiotics in agriculture and how this trend directly
contributes to increasing antimicrobial resistance and virulence in
foodborne pathogens.
Over the last few years, we have seen the emergence of multi-drug
resistant, highly virulent Salmonella in poultry products. For example,
between 2002 to 2011 resistance to Ceftriaxone, an important antibiotic
used to treat children who have Salmonella, increased from 10 percent
to 34 percent in chicken, and from 8 percent to 22 percent in ground
turkey.
This is why I have introduced legislation to ban the non-
therapeutic use of medically important antibiotics in animal feed. I
have also worked closely with the Food and Drug Administration on their
important efforts to achieve this goal through administrative action.
Specifically, FDA Commissioner Hamburg recently published guidance
that will require all medically important antibiotics used in animal
feed to be administered only upon the order of a licensed veterinarian
and only for therapeutic reasons.
What will be critical is that veterinarians take a leadership role
in working closely with producers to prevent infections without using
antibiotics, and to use antibiotics only when no alternatives exist.
What steps is USDA taking to reduce antibiotic use in agriculture
and prevent the development of antibiotic resistance?
Answer. The issue of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) requires
multidisciplinary coordination from both the public health and animal
health sectors. USDA remains firmly committed to working with State and
Federal partners, veterinarians, and producers to analyze the various
uses of antibiotics in food animal production and to promote practices
justified by sound science that could reduce the use of antibiotics on
the farm while protecting animal health. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has been developing new Guidance for Industry
(GFI) related to the AMR issue for the past several years. USDA
participated in discussions with FDA on several of these Guidance
documents, most recently GFI 213, which seeks the voluntary removal of
label claims for growth promotion or feed efficiency for medically
important antimicrobials which would bring all feed and water uses of
medically important antimicrobial drugs under the oversight of a
veterinarian. USDA is supportive of FDA AMR policies that effectively
secure human and animal health. In addition, we are working with FDA to
identify metrics to assess the impacts of current and future policy
actions related to antimicrobial drug use in livestock and poultry.
USDA is at the forefront of promoting biosecurity practices to
reduce disease exposure and spread to keep livestock and poultry
healthy, which can reduce the need for antimicrobial use. These efforts
include the development of new vaccines, enhanced diagnostics, and
alternative treatments to antimicrobial products such as
immunomodulators (drugs which can enhance immune response and could
potentially reduce some uses of antimicrobials). Furthermore, USDA has
worked to develop a better understanding of the ecology and
epidemiology of animal disease agents on-farm and at harvest and
processing to identify ways to mitigate the risk of animals becoming
infected and the risk of transmission of disease agents by foodborne
routes. These efforts, combined with educational efforts promoting the
judicious use of antimicrobials, will support a strong, healthy, and
thriving U.S. animal-agriculture system as well as public health. In
this regard, USDA is working with Federal, State and industry partners
to help ensure the effectiveness of antimicrobials. Antimicrobials are
beneficial in animal agriculture to improve the health and welfare of
animals. We are committed to helping provide sound science to inform
appropriate policy decisions regarding antimicrobials. The appropriate
use of health management practices is pivotal to an on-farm strategy to
optimize antimicrobial use on U.S. livestock and poultry operations.
Question. How is USDA helping to increase veterinary oversight of
antibiotic use?
Answer. USDA has been assisting the Department of Health and Human
Services (specifically the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)) in its
development of policies related to the use of antimicrobial drugs in
food-producing animals. We have provided FDA with results of analyses
from a small producer survey conducted in part to gain information
about producers' access to veterinarians. This information was critical
for FDA to make decisions about how best to require veterinary
involvement in the selection and use of medically important
antimicrobial drugs via feed or water in livestock and poultry
production. In addition, we work with producer groups and veterinary
organizations to help assure the judicious use of antimicrobial drugs
through quality assurance programs and educational modules. Further, we
are working with producers, practitioners, and the pharmaceutical
industry to describe antibiotic use practices by producers, determine
the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance on the farm, identify risk
factors for resistance development, and, develop and implement
interventions to reduce antimicrobial resistance.
downed non-ambulatory veal rule
Question. Mr. Secretary, I have been concerned over the years by
the fact that downed, non-ambulatory veal calves can be slaughtered for
human consumption.
I wrote to your Department in 2009 asking that the slaughtering of
downed veal calves be halted, and I have introduced legislation in the
past to ban this inhumane practice. I was happy to see that your
Department announced in 2013 that it would propose a rule to finally
accomplish this important goal.
However, I was deeply disturbed by the recent, egregious inhumane
handling of veal calves at a plant in New Jersey. What was particularly
troubling about this specific situation is that the inhumane handling
clearly happened over a long period of time and was identified by an
undercover video, rather than by Federal inspectors that were present
at the establishment.
This is why I recently wrote again to Acting Under Secretary
Ronholm, requesting that USDA move as quickly as possible to propose
and finalize a rule to ensure that downed veal calves are ineligible
for slaughter, and that they receive prompt and humane euthanasia.
Mr. Secretary, do you believe this is a rule you can propose and
finalize before the end of fiscal year 2015?
Answer. FSIS anticipates publishing the proposed rule by the end of
calendar year 2014. In addition, the Agency will continue to use its
existing authority to ensure that veal calves and other livestock are
humanely handled in connection with slaughter.
federal inspector's training
Question. Will you agree to re-evaluate the training and deployment
of your Federal inspectors to better ensure that the health and
handling of livestock receive adequate oversight?
Answer. We are fully committed to consistent improvements in our
training and deployment of our Federal inspectors. We are actively
developing and implementing action plans to ensure better oversight and
to fulfill our obligations under the Humane Handling Act at regulated
industry establishments.
specialty crop pest program
Question. Mr. Secretary, specialty crops are a tremendous part of
California's $44.7 billion agriculture industry. In fact, my State
produces the vast majority of the produce, fruits, and nuts consumed
across the United States.
I am concerned about the proposed cut to the Specialty Crop Pest
program. This program received $152 million last year, but your budget
request for this program is only $137 million. This represents a
significant cut of 10 percent to this critical program.
The Specialty Crop Pests program helps to combat devastating pests
that destroy crops or could result in the loss of critical markets to
these crops. For example, the Citrus Health Response Program is
critical to combating citrus greening disease and the pest that spreads
it. I am deeply concerned that reduced funding for the program could
allow this disease to spread across California and devastate our citrus
industry.
The Specialty Crop Pests program also combats the European
Grapevine Moth and the Light Brown Apple Moth, two pests of significant
economic impact to producers in my State. In fact, significant progress
has been made towards eradicating the European Grapevine Moth from the
Napa region of California, and it is critical that work continue to
meet this goal.
How will the Department plan to safeguard the specialty crop
industry when faced with a 10 percent cut to the Specialty Crop Pests
Program?
Answer. APHIS recognizes the importance of the programs for which
reductions are proposed. These efforts not only help ensure the
availability of fresh produce, they also support U.S. producers'
ability to export their products. USDA realizes the importance of these
programs, but also believes that these activities should be a
cooperative effort and a shared responsibility between the Federal
Government and the State and local governments whose people will most
directly and immediately benefit. The Department's budget represents
our determination to find the correct balance in these
responsibilities. USDA realizes the importance of these programs, but
also believes that these activities should be a cooperative effort and
a shared responsibility between the Federal Government and the State
and local governments whose people will most directly and immediately
benefit. The Department's budget represents our determination to find
the correct balance in these responsibilities.
domestic flower growers
Question. Mr. Secretary, I am proud that California is home to many
of our Nation's top domestic flower growers. I believe one important
way to support the domestic flower industry is to highlight the
importance of sourcing locally and domestically grown fresh cut
flowers.
This is why I urged the First Lady in 2012 to display domestically
grown flowers in the White House. I was delighted that the recent State
Dinner for French President Francois Hollande used domestic flowers--
including blue and purple irises grown in California.
Mr. Secretary, America's cut flower industry is at a critical
juncture. Since the early 1990s, the United States cut flower industry
has rapidly lost market share to imported flowers from South America as
a result of trade preferences contained in the Andean Trade Preferences
Act.
Before the enactment of this law, American producers contributed 64
percent of the cut flowers sold in this country. Today, American
producers supply just 20 percent of the total domestic market.
Mr. Secretary, I am grateful that your Department has been
supportive of the domestic flower industry, including in the effort to
have domestic flowers displayed at White House events.
What additional actions can your Department take to promote the use
of domestically grown flowers in the United States and to expand this
unique and important sector of our Nation's agriculture industry?
Answer. USDA supports the marketing of domestically grown flowers
through a number of programs. Market News, for example, improves market
transparency for domestic growers by reporting market prices for cut
flowers and other ornamental crops at wholesale and shipping points,
and by reporting the volume of imports through the key entry points
such as Miami and various Mexican crossing points. Market News also
publishes several specialized market reports on ornamental crops,
including the Miami Shipping Point Ornamental Price Report, the Boston
Wholesale Ornamental Price Report, the Miami Ornamental Shipping Point
Trends, and the Weekly Summary for Ornamentals. AMS is working toward
expanding Market News reporting of local and regional markets, which
will capture cut flowers and other ornamental crops that are sold
locally. Current reports on farmers' auctions include flower sales.
Farmers' markets are another sales outlet for domestic flowers.
USDA also supports marketing by developing and updating U.S. grade
standards, which are an essential element in resolving disputes
concerning product quality, provide a basis for domestic and
international trade, and promote efficiency in marketing. There are
currently three U.S. grade standards for cut flower products which
describe the quality of flowers in the marketplace. AMS will work with
the cut flower industry as needed to develop, update, or otherwise
improve U.S. grade standards so that they reflect current cultural and
marketing practices.
Finally, the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program has funded 23
projects specifically focused on cut flower research, marketing,
production, and consumer and producer education since 2009, for a total
of more than $1.4 million. The 2014 farm bill increased the funding
available to each State for Specialty Crop Block Grants and these
resources continue to be available to support industry proposals.
horse welfare
Question. Mr. Secretary, I have long been an advocate of horse
welfare. One particular egregious example of inhumane treatment of
horses that concerns me is the practice of soring.
As you are aware, Mr. Secretary, ``soring'' is a practice employed
by bad actors to inflict pain, injury, and disfigurement to horses'
legs to force them to produce an exaggerated gait.
As you are aware, a 2010 report by the Inspector General found that
the current legal structure of low fines, weak horse welfare
safeguards, and a reliance on industry self-regulation have proven
completely ineffective in ending the abuse of horses.
It is my belief that USDA would benefit from increased authority
and additional resources to end the disturbing practice of horse
soring.
To that end, I am a cosponsor of the Prevent All Soring Tactics
Act, along with 50 other members of this chamber. This act would ban
the use of soring devices like chains, end the failed system of
industry self-regulation, and increase penalties for violators. This
legislation is strongly supported by animal welfare groups, the
national horse industry, and the veterinary community. It is my hope
that this bill will pass soon.
Mr. Secretary, how important will the ``Prevent All Soring Tactics
Act'' be to your Department in its efforts to end the abusive practice
of horse soring?
Answer. Soring is a concern, and USDA's Horse Protection Program
aims to reduce or eliminate the abusive practice of soring of horses.
Currently, horse show sponsors and/or show management have statutory
responsibility under the Horse Protection Act (HPA) to prevent unfair
competition and must identify and disqualify sored horses. USDA works
collaboratively with the 12 current Horse Industry Organizations (HIOs)
to train and license designated qualified persons used to inspect
horses for soring at all events covered by the HPA. In fiscal year
2013, APHIS' Investigative and Enforcement Services issued 1,255
official warnings and, in collaboration with USDA's Office of the
General Counsel, pursued administrative enforcement actions against 36
alleged violators of the HPA. Beyond this, APHIS obtained 19 decisions
and orders to resolve alleged violations of the HPA, which resulted in
orders assessing $4,200 in civil penalties and disqualifying 10
individuals from participating in HPA-regulated activities.
Under the proposed Prevent All Soring Tactics Act, USDA would take
the necessary action to license, train, assign, and oversee horse
inspectors as required to continue efforts to reduce and eliminate
horse soring.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
farm bill implementation
Question. Enactment of a farm bill this February ended a 2-year
holding pattern for farmers and ranchers. It authorized new commodity,
dairy, disaster, and risk management programs and represents the most
significant change in farm policy in a generation. USDA has already
started the process of implementing the livestock disaster programs
with a goal of producer signup starting April 15, 2014. Producers are
eager for USDA to continue implementation of farm bill programs.
How are you prioritizing implementation of farm bill programs?
Answer. Farm bill program implementation has been designed to
create certainty for our customers, to be orderly for our staff, to
recognize the deadlines established by law, and to recognize any
pressing priorities of the farming and ranching community regarding
markets, weather, and crop cycles. Our initial prioritization,
therefore, involved making livestock disaster payments to producers
affected by disasters since October 1, 2011. Payments for those years
had not been possible until disaster assistance authority was restored
in the recent farm bill. We sent a clear message that livestock
producers would be quickly paid for past losses, and started signup on
April 15--with payment starting shortly thereafter. As of late June,
over $1 billion in payments have been made, largely under the Livestock
Forage Program. We also made sure that programs continuing under the
new farm bill were available to producers this past spring, such as the
marketing assistance loan program. For example, loan rates were
announced shortly after bill passage, so that winter wheat producers
could take out marketing assistance loans as soon as their crop was
harvested.
We know that producers are conservers of our soil and water, which
is also a priority. On June 9, FSA restarted continuous signups in the
Conservation Reserve Program, as well as the CRP Transition Incentives
Program for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
In lieu of a general sign-up this year, we're allowing producers with
CRP contracts expiring this September to receive a 1-year contract
extension. And we've implemented the farm bill requirement that in
certain cases producers enrolled through general sign-up for at least 5
years can opt-out of their contracts. Resumption of the Biomass Crop
Assistance program began in early June to assist with the peak season
for the removal of forest residues that pose a fire threat.
Implementing new programs--such as the new dairy program and
Agricultural Risk Coverage/Price Loss Coverage (ARC/PLC) is also a
priority, and this work has been on-going for several months. We are
very much focused on having these programs be as effective as possible,
and ensuring that producers understand how best to use them. A robust
outreach and education plan is being developed to help farmers prepare
for complex decisions they will make later this year under ARC/PLC, the
new margin protection program for dairy, and enhanced protection under
Crop Disaster Assistance Program. These programs will be available, and
producers will need to start making decisions, this fall.
Question. The farm bill included $100 million for implementation
costs. How do you plan to allocate those resources?
Answer. The 2014 farm bill provided this funding to assist in the
implementation of title I programs, which continues many programs from
the 2008 farm bill, but also creates several new programs, a new Margin
Protection Program for dairy and a new safety net approach for
agriculture, the Agricultural Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage
programs. These programs all have important implementation activities
for fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015, including the development of
software, hiring temporary employees, training field office staff and
producer outreach and education. Under FSA's current spending plan
estimates, approximately $33.1 million would be utilized in fiscal year
2014. The assumptions include $6.2 million for temporary employees,
$6.4 million for travel related to training, $3.7 million for postage
and other operating expenses, $10.8 million for IT development and $6.0
million for extension and education. The remaining $66.9 million would
be utilized in fiscal year 2015. The assumptions include $27.0 million
for temporary employees, $10.9 million for travel related to training,
$8.6 million for postage and other operating expenses, and $20.4
million for IT development. The spending plan assumptions are subject
to change as FSA begins the implementation process for each program and
a clearer understanding of specific administrative requirements are
better defined.
Question. USDA has already fast-tracked implementation of livestock
disaster programs. When can livestock producers expect payments to be
made for their losses?
Answer. Payments are issued within a few days of contract approval.
The timing of a particular payment depends on the complexity of the
application, the time needed for review, and whether documentation of
losses provided to FSA offices is complete or requires follow-up. As of
April 8, just 4 months after the farm bill was signed, USDA has
received more than 160,000 applications for help and issued more than
$1 billion in disaster relief to farmers and ranchers nationwide.
Question. When can producers expect signup to begin for Price Loss
Coverage and Agricultural Risk Coverage programs?
Answer. Late this summer FSA plans to provide producers information
on their current base acres, yields and 2009-2012 planting history and
offer them an opportunity to verify this information with their local
FSA office. Then later this fall, there will be an opportunity to
update yields and reallocate bases--this is the critical first step in
rolling out the ARC/PLC program. By mid-winter all producers on a farm
will be required to make a one-time election between price protection,
county revenue protection, and/or individual revenue protection for the
2014-2018 crop years.
midas implementation
Question. MIDAS was chartered in 2007 to reengineer and modernize
the Farm Service Agency's antiquated IT systems. The ultimate goal of
the system was to streamline delivery of farm programs and give
producers access to farm programs online.
The original cost of MIDAS was reported to be $305 million with
full implementation to be completed in March 2014--this month. However,
it is clear that USDA will not be able to meet the goals and timelines
originally envisioned and repeatedly reported to this subcommittee.
At this time, the subcommittee has already invested over $305
million in MIDAS, and USDA is far behind schedule on implementing the
system.
Further, GAO has reported on separate occasions, in 2008, 2011, and
2013, that successful implementation of MIDAS is at risk, warning that
USDA's ability to deliver system capabilities on time and within budget
is limited by its failure to adopt sound management practices.
USDA recently embarked on a process to re-scope the timeline and
cost of the project. This process is ongoing.
I understand that the Department is in the process of updating cost
and implementation goals for MIDAS. How much do you expect the scope
and cost of MIDAS to change?
Answer. To ensure effective implementation of the 2014 farm bill,
changes will need to be made to the MIDAS plan. Modernization of the
FSA acreage reporting and inventory reporting processes included in the
MIDAS Acreage Reporting/Inventory Reporting release will be placed on
hold so focus could be placed the Acreage Crop Reporting Streamlining
Initiative (ACRSI). The original AR/IR release was focused on a
solution for just FSA, whereas ACRSI is a multi-agency approach to
acreage reporting and inventory reporting. All remaining MIDAS funds
are to be focused on the Business Partner release due to be rolled out
in early fiscal year 2015.
Question. USDA was given plenty of warning that the MIDAS plan was
flawed, why did it take the Department so long to address program
deficiencies and inform the subcommittee of program changes?
Answer. In recognition of the strategic importance of the MIDAS
investment to the future transformation of FSA, the Department and FSA
have been intensely focused on developing a MIDAS plan to address
program deficiencies. In January 2013, USDA initiated a re-baseline of
the MIDAS investment. It was expected that the re-baseline would
produce an approach to mitigate risks and provide improved program
outcomes. Recommendations provided by oversight bodies such as the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding the original program
plan are being incorporated into the re-baseline.
FSA will take several steps to strengthen the management and
budgetary controls over the MIDAS program to improve program delivery
effectiveness. First, it will intensify the focus on business needs and
program delivery driving the technology and business process changes.
Second, it will strengthen managerial oversight and accountability to
focus on FSA's Farm Program Delivery business needs. Third, it will re-
align FSA's organizational structure to better leverage resources
between/across program delivery and production. Finally, it will
implement controls and check points on budgetary decisions.
ped virus
Question. There is a threatening animal disease that has severely
impacted the pork industry in a very short period of time. In the last
year alone, farms in 27 States have tested positive for the PED virus
and over 4 million pigs have died as a result. Little is known about
how the disease came to the United States, nor much about how it is
spreading, but the potential economic impacts could be devastating.
Many eyes will be on USDA's quarterly hog report on March 28.
Demand for pork products is highest in the coming summer months
when families and friends gather for barbecues, and grocery store
prices will inevitably reflect supply impacts due to the PED virus.
How much is the price of pork expected to increase in the coming
months?
Answer. The USDA's Economic Research Service forecasts second-
quarter prices of live 51-52 percent lean equivalent hogs to average
$78-$82 per cwt (hundredweight), about 22 percent above prices a year
ago.
Question. What is USDA doing to help mitigate the economic impacts
to industry and consumers?
Answer. To prevent further spread of the disease and, evaluate
control and elimination strategies, USDA is participating and assisting
in epidemiological investigations and risk assessments of incidents.
These actions are designed to determine how to minimize the impact of
porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV)'s impact on swine producers and
the swine industry. In addition, the Department is negotiating with
China to relax their restrictions on live swine shipments from the
United States. We expect that this issue will be resolved in June 2014.
We are considering what additional actions, such as assistance with
diagnostic testing and additional on-farm biosecurity, may be necessary
to reduce the spread and impact of PEDV.
Question. Does the budget request dedicate sufficient resources to
research, surveillance, and other areas to gain control of the virus?
Answer. Because USDA developed the fiscal year 2015 budget before
the Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea virus (PEDV) situation became prominent,
we have not included a specific request for funding in our fiscal year
2015 request for monitoring and management activities. If additional
funds are needed in fiscal year 2015, the Department will pursue
alternative funding sources. Agencies have used programmatic
flexibility to support activities such as:
--APHIS, in conjunction with State and industry partners, has been
working to develop appropriate responses to PEDV and Swine
Delta Coronaviruses at a national level.
--Furthermore, since the PED virus was identified in the spring of
2013, ERS economists have used expert opinions from industry
contacts to develop a balance sheet that calculates ranges of
production losses due to the virus. ERS took this approach
because, as a non-reportable disease, there is no data series
that explicitly itemizes PED losses. The forecasts that ERS has
submitted to the inter-agency process incorporate calculated
production loss estimates. These estimates help to form the
basis of pork production and other sectorial indicators that
are published monthly in USDA's World Agricultural Supply and
Demand Estimates.
--Moreover, a Hatch Multi-State Group, Enteric Diseases of Food
Animals: Enhanced Prevention, Control and Food Safety (NC1202),
is in place as a result of the ongoing Hatch capacity funding.
This group is funded from October 2012 through September 2017.
It is taking steps to address this disease, particularly
through work being conducted at The Ohio State University. For
example, it developed new diagnostic tests for detection (real-
time RT-PCR; immunofluorescent antibody). Also funds have been
used to support early stages of PEDV vaccine development.
Additionally, the National Animal Health Laboratory Network,
funded in part through NIFA Food and Agricultural Defense
Initiative dollars, is cooperating with disease surveillance on
PEDV. Because the disease is so recent, no competitive projects
have received funding to date.
--Lastly, ARS has been developing plans to focus research at the
National Animal Disease Center (NADC), in Ames, Iowa, on
Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus (PEDV). The aim of the research
is to provide scientific information needed to enable the
development of countermeasures and enhance on-farm biosecurity.
Emphasis will be placed on identifying mechanisms of viral
pathogenesis, transmission, and immunity to PEDV, including
other emerging coronaviruses of swine.
biotech regulation
Question. The United States remains the global leader in
agriculture production because American farmers are the best at doing
what they do if given a level playing field. Improved seed technology
enables farmers to increase yields or mitigate losses due to drought or
disease. More than 90 percent of soybeans, corn, and cotton grown in
the United States are biotech products.
Before any of these products can be brought to market, they must
receive approval from USDA. While I recognize that USDA has attempted
to make improvements to their process, what Americans are witnessing is
that it takes as much as three times longer to gain approval for a new
seed in the United States than it does in competing countries like
Brazil and Argentina--putting American farmers at a competitive
disadvantage.
How can USDA improve its review and permitting processes to allow
for more timely approvals?
Answer. In fiscal year 2010, USDA conducted an internal review on
its petition process for genetically engineered (GE) organisms to
identify ways to speed up the time to reach a deregulation decision.
While our regulations provide a timeline of 180 days, our process
improvement analysis revealed an estimated timeline of 13-15 months to
conduct quality analysis to support our decisions and protect plant
health. USDA uses the Plant Protection Act and National Environmental
Policy Act as the framework for its regulatory processes and decision-
making, which ultimately drive our timelines. Other countries do not
have to necessarily adhere to the same requirements.
USDA has implemented process improvements to quickly establish what
path our reviews will take and what level of environmental review is
necessary.
In regard to timelines in competing countries, Canada's directive
does not specify the length of time that they are supposed to finish
their reviews (with the exception of the timeframes for crops with
stacked traits). Brazil's timeframe in regulation is 270 days, but they
do not always meet this.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency data compiled from February 2010 to
June 2013 covering 21 applications have a range of 7 months to 3.5
years, with an average of 22 months. The average timeframe for a
Canadian cultivation approval for a single event is 24 months. Canadian
cultivation involving breeding stack adds an additional 2 months on
average.
Brazil is taking about 12 months to complete their reviews (prior
to 2007, length of time was 4-8 years). The average timeframe for a
Brazilian cultivation approval of a single event is 27 months.
Brazilian approvals for cultivation of breeding stacks add an
additional 15 months on average.
We are making good progress on reducing the time it takes to review
and complete biotech approvals. USDA is committed to continuing efforts
to meet the new timeframes it set. We assure the Committee that this is
a high priority for USDA.
Question. What is the current backlog of applications and when does
USDA expect to clear out the backlog?
Answer. The backlog petitions, or as we generally refer to them as
legacy petitions, totaled 23 in March 2012. Any petition received after
that date was not counted as part of the backlog because they were new
petitions.
The 23 petitions considered as part of the backlog are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
03-104-01p*............................... Scott's/Monsanto HR Creeping
Bentgrass
03-323-01p................................ Monsanto glyphosate-tolerant
sugar beet (Partial
Deregulation)
09-015-01p................................ BASF imidazolinone tolerant
soy
09-055-01p................................ Monsanto drought tolerant
corn
09-063-01p................................ Stine Seed GT corn
(extension)
09-183-01p................................ Monsanto stearidonic acid
soy
09-201-01p................................ Monsanto modified-oil HT soy
09-233-01p*............................... Dow AAD-1 HT corn
09-328-01p................................ Bayer glyphosate/
isoxaflutole tol soy
09-349-01p*............................... Dow 2,4-D glufosinate
soybean
10-070-01p................................ Virginia Tech blight
resistant peanuts
10-161-01p*............................... Okanagan non-browning apple
10-188-01p*............................... Monsanto Dicamba soybean
10-281-01p................................ Monsanto MS glyphosate
tolerant corn
10-336-01p................................ Syngenta's Rootworm
Resistant Corn
11-019-01p*............................... ArborGen cold-tolerant
eucalyptus
11-063-01p................................ Pioneer GT Canola
11-182-01p................................ Simplot Low-Browning
Potatoes
11-188-01p................................ Monsanto GT Canola
11-202-01p................................ Monsanto Increased-yield
Soybean
11-234-01p*............................... Dow 2, 4-D, glyphosate,
glufosinate soybean
11-244-01p................................ Pioneer BT/GT corn
11-342-01p................................ Genective glyphosate
resistant corn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitions in the chart above highlighted with an asterisk (*)
are still pending. These account for seven of the 23 backlog petitions.
The remaining items have been completed; that is, we have made a
determination of nonregulated status or they were withdrawn by the
submitter. We have completed 16 petitions since the implementation of
the process improvements in March 2012. Of the seven still in review,
Okanagan apples is the only one that is not associated with an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which are not subject to the
timeline goals of the petition process improvements and take
significantly longer to complete. We expect to complete that petition
sometime this summer. With this determination, all petitions that do
not require an EIS will be cleared from the backlog.
Six of our petitions require an EIS; in its November 2011
announcement, USDA indicated that petitions that require an EIS will
take more time and could not be completed in the timeframes
established. With respect to the petitions associated with an EIS, we
anticipate making final determinations on the following petitions by
the end of fiscal year 2014:
--Dow's ADD-1 HT corn;
--Dow's 2, 4-D, glufosinate soybean; and
--Dow's 2, 4-D, glyphosate, glufosinate soybean.
In addition, we are scheduled to complete Monsanto's Dicamba
soybean by the end of the calendar year.
Finally, we are projecting a final determination on ArborGen's
cold-tolerant eucalyptus petition in early calendar year 2015. With
this determination, APHIS will have cleared the backlog of petitions.
international agriculture development
Question. The subcommittee had the pleasure of hosting Bill Gates a
couple weeks ago for a discussion about research, innovation, and the
global landscape of agriculture. He mentioned that one of his
foundation's greatest challenges is the lack of regulatory processes
related to biotechnology approvals in many developing countries and the
hardships faced with trying to introduce improved seed and technology.
As you alluded to in your opening statement, can you talk about the
efforts of the Foreign Agricultural Service, and that of USDA in
general, in working with these countries to develop a regulatory
process?
Answer. Promoting agricultural production and biotechnology exports
to increase food security in the world is a stated strategic goal for
USDA. It remains one of the key guiding principles for the work of the
Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS), both in our policy and capacity
building activities. USDA promotes sustainable, market-led growth
across the entire food production and market chain.
Specific capacity building activities organized by USDA include:
regulatory workshops aimed at science-based, predictable, transparent,
World Trade Organization (WTO)-compliant regulatory development;
farmer-to-farmer exchanges; establishment and strengthening of networks
or associations of farmers; communication trainings for civil society
and members of the media; information and resource sharing for the
local academic community; and capacity strengthening of African
countries to engage in relevant international discussions that impact
the development or trade of biotechnology products.
In implementing this activity, USDA works with other relevant U.S.
Government (USG) agencies, the U.S. university system, and the U.S.
private and non-governmental sectors. Where applicable and useful, USDA
also works closely with other like-minded country governments, such as
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and Canada.
Question. With half of the world's remaining planted acreage
available in Africa, is there a particular focus on African countries?
Answer. USDA's biotech outreach and capacity building efforts in
Africa focus on Burkina Faso, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria,
South Africa, and Uganda. These countries have been identified as
priority countries based on their acceptance and adoption of the
technology and the influential role they can play in their respective
regions. In addition, USDA has been engaging with regional
organizations, such as the Common Market for Eastern and Southern
Africa (COMESA) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC).
In COMESA and SADC, USDA supports the development and implementation of
regional biosafety regulatory frameworks to help African countries with
limited resources take advantage of the benefits of the technology.
Examples of USDA's recently concluded biotech outreach and capacity
building activities include the following:
--COMESA Regional Biosafety Framework.--In August 2013, USDA
facilitated endorsement of a regional policy on biotechnology
and biosafety in eastern and southern Africa. The policy will
allow for sharing of regulatory information and resources, and
enable adoption of biotechnology in the region. USDA continues
its engagement with COMESA to support the implementation of the
policy.
--United States-Brazil Biotech Workshop.--In April 2013, the United
States and Brazil concluded a successful outreach initiative on
biotechnology to nine influential African countries to develop
pro-biotechnology African champions and further strengthen
United States-Brazil collaboration in biotechnology.
data security in agriculture
Question. Farmers have been sharing data with agribusiness, State
agencies, and USDA for decades. Much of this data is personal and
includes information about specific farming practices. The use of data,
combined with technology, has given U.S. farmers new tools to maintain
their competitive edge. However, as with any scenario where a farmer
shares personal information about their property, farming practices,
and yield, privacy concerns are raised. It's fair to say a lot of data
on farmers is out there in the private and public domain, and American
farmers are rightfully concerned that their data remain private.
This concern is not unfounded, especially following the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) release of personal information
on more than 80,000 farmers in 29 States. Lawsuits have been filed to
stop EPA from disclosing more personal information about farmers.
In almost every mission area, USDA collects and procures a
significant amount of producer data for research and statistical
analysis.
What assurances do farmers have that personal data collected by
USDA is protected from public dissemination? Are these protections in
law or regulation?
Answer. USDA is committed to protecting a producer's personal data,
as required by the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. section 552a--as amended), the
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. section 552--as amended), and,
more specific to the protection of producer data, as identified in
section 1619 of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
8791). Since enactment in 2008, 7 U.S.C. 8791 has served as the
foundational baseline outlining USDA's requirement to protect
information that has been provided by a producer in order to
participate in a USDA program and to protect geospatial information
maintained by USDA. For participants in the Federal crop insurance
program, information provided by the producer is protected from public
dissemination by the Federal Crop Insurance Act, section 502(c) (7
U.S.C. 1502(c)), Protection of Confidential Information, which
precludes the Department from releasing to the public information
provided by the producer, unless the producer consents to the release
of such information.
Question. Are privacy standards consistent within the Department at
different agencies? Should they be consistent?
Answer. USDA agencies are generally governed by the Privacy Act,
Freedom of Information Act, and E-Government Act of 2002. In addition,
some programs or agencies within USDA may have program authorizing
statutes that impose additional, and sometimes differing, privacy
standards. Also, each USDA Agency has the authority to develop detailed
policy that is specifically designed to address the protected data
types most commonly processed within the Agency. For example, Farm
Service Agency has Agency-specific protected data policy identifying
the responsibility to safeguard any information that sheds light on a
producer's financial situation or farm operations, such as farm loans
or farm loan application information, farm lease agreements, owner and
operator/tenant agreements, actual crop production amounts, actual crop
yields, cropland acres, farmland acres, specific crop acres, number of
livestock, or irrigation/non-irrigation data. Also, the Federal Crop
Insurance Act specifically prohibits the Department and approved
insurance providers from disclosing to the public information furnished
by a producer participating in the Federal crop insurance program.
Question. Does USDA ever share farmer data with other governments
to entities outside the Department, such as EPA? If an Agency were to
request such data, would the Department share it?
Answer. USDA has shared protected producer data with Government
entities outside the Department, however, the sharing of protected
producer data can occur only if the requesting non-USDA Government
entity meets the authorized disclosure criteria that control USDA's
ability to share protected producer data. 7 U.S.C. section 8791
establishes the standard baseline USDA must follow concerning the
sharing of protected producer data. Within 7 U.S.C. section 8791 there
is policy indicating that USDA is able to make an authorized disclosure
of protected producer data when the requesting individual or
organization is working in cooperation with the Secretary in a USDA
program. If a non-USDA Government entity were to request that USDA
share protected producer data, under 7 U.S.C. section 8791 USDA is
required to confirm that the requesting non-USDA Government entity is
in fact working in cooperation with the Secretary by providing
technical or financial assistance concerning a Department program.
Based on a thorough evaluation of applicable documentary material, USDA
will make a determination as to whether the requesting non-USDA
Government entity will or will not be certified as a USDA Cooperator.
If a non-USDA Government entity does qualify for USDA Cooperator status
under the authorized disclosure provision within 7 U.S.C. section 8791,
USDA will share only that protected producer data that is necessary for
the non-USDA Government entity to participate in the identified USDA
program. By way of example, when USDA Cooperator status is confirmed
the Farm Service Agency uses a USDA Cooperator memorandum of
understanding to document the terms and conditions associated with the
disclosure of protected producer data to a certified USDA Cooperator.
If a non-USDA Government entity does not qualify for USDA Cooperator
status under the authorized disclosure provision within 7 U.S.C.
section 8791, USDA will not release protected producer data to the
requesting non-USDA Government entity.
For participants in the Federal crop insurance program, farmer data
is not generally shared with other Federal, State, or local agencies
outside of USDA unless it is to aid in the administration and
management of the Federal crop insurance program. Farmer data is not
normally released to other Federal, State, or local agencies unless a
demonstrated need exists that may impact the Federal crop insurance
program. However, these agencies are also bound by the same public
disclosure restrictions contained within section 502(c) of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act that apply to USDA, insurance companies, etc.
Generally, the Department's published routine uses of this data guide
such sharing of the information and can be found in the Privacy Act
system of records, FCIC-10, entitled ``Policyholder.''
food safety inspection
Question. Since fiscal year 2013, the budget request has assumed
implementation of a final rule on modernization of poultry slaughter
operations and the savings associated with it. OMB has not indicated a
firm date for publishing the final rule, and USDA would seemingly need
time after its publishing to negotiate with its labor unions before
implementation could take place. Given these factors, there is little
confidence that the new inspection system will be implemented in fiscal
year 2015 and the proposed operational savings will be realized.
Without taking decentralized rent and security payments into
account, the request for FSIS is nearly $20 million below current
operating levels, and that figure assumes pay increases.
If the modernized inspection system is not implemented in fiscal
year 2015, does the budget request propose adequate resources for the
Agency to fully meet its inspection obligations?
Answer. We are fully committed to maintaining all mandated
inspection obligations. If poultry inspection modernization is not
implemented in fiscal year 2015, FSIS would prioritize available
resources to ensure mandated inspections are performed.
Question. When can we expect a final rule to be issued on poultry
slaughter modernization? What is the cause of the delay?
Answer. FSIS is in the process of preparing a final rule on poultry
slaughter after considering the comments received. It is not possible
to provide a specific timeline.
Question. What is a reasonable timeline for implementing the final
rule?
Answer. We anticipate the rule to be fully implemented within 18-24
months from the date of publication of the rule in the Federal
Register.
country of origin labeling
Question. The budget request assumes continued enforcement of the
amended final rule on country-of-origin labeling (COOL) that was issued
by USDA in May 2013. Like the original final rule, Canada and Mexico
have challenged its compliance with international trade obligations
under the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement. Indications suggest
that a WTO panel will issue an interim report with their decision in
June of this year, with a final report the following month.
Should the WTO panel rule against the United States in its report,
would USDA further amend its final rule to avoid retaliation?
Answer. We expect a final report to be circulated publicly this
fall. Any appeal of the panel report will not be resolved until
sometime in 2015. USDA's 2013 final rule constitutes compliance.
Therefore, it would be very premature to speculate on what actions
would be necessary to further modify the COOL program.
Question. What would be the Department's COOL activity in fiscal
year 2015 in the event of an unfavorable ruling?
Answer. We do not expect the Appellate Body to issue its report
until sometime in 2015. We consider that the 2013 final rule
constitutes compliance. It is premature to speculate what actions would
be necessary following that report.
forest service issues
Question. I understand that the Department of Agriculture, through
the Forest Service, along with other Federal agencies and the State of
Missouri, is engaged in discussions with The Doe Run Company concerning
their legacy liabilities in southeast Missouri. As I hope you will
appreciate, Doe Run is vital to the regional economy of southeast
Missouri, and I want you to understand that the continued viability of
the company is a matter of keen interest and importance to me.
Are you aware of the ongoing discussions involving your Department?
Answer. Yes, I am aware of the matter.
Question. Can I get your personal assurance that you will pay close
attention to this matter, and that you will make sure that Doe Run
receives fair treatment, consistent with the importance of this company
to the long-term economic interests of southeast Missouri?
Answer. Throughout this process, the USDA and the other Government
agencies have endeavored to treat Doe Run fairly and with respect.
rural electric user fee
Question. The budget proposes a new user fee on RUS borrowers to
cover administrative expenses for environmental assessment costs
associated with electric transmission infrastructure projects. Little
to no explanation is provided as to the origin of the fee proposal, the
parameters of how fees would be assessed, or the intended use of the
fee's revenue other than to supplement salaries and expenses.
Have current borrowers been consulted during the process of
formulating the user fee proposal?
Answer. The origin of this action was a recommendation of the
inter-agency Rapid Response Team for Transmission (RRTT). The RRTT is
an outgrowth of the 2009 memorandum of understanding between nine
Federal agencies regarding coordination in Federal agency reviews of
electric transmission facilities on Federal land, and other Executive
orders and Presidential memorandums on expediting the review and
permitting of electric transmission facilities. A specific goal of the
RRTT was to ``improve the overall quality and timeliness of electric
transmission infrastructure permitting, review, and consultation by the
Federal Government on both Federal and non-Federal lands.''
Of all of the Federal agencies involved in the review and
permitting of electric transmission facilities, the Rural Utilities
Service (RUS) was the only Agency that did not have cost recovery
authority. This action proposes to give RUS cost recovery authority.
The proposed cost recovery language is consistent with the intent of
that for the Federal land management agencies and, if authorized, is
expected to greatly improve RUS' ability to more effectively manage and
process transmission related applications for financial assistance from
its borrowers.
Transmission line proposals can be very complex covering multiple
jurisdictions including States with the potential for environmental,
historic preservation, and landscape-level effects. Many projects are
locally and regionally significant and controversial and having a
greater Agency presence is desirable to ensure that the Agency's and
the public's interests are adequately addressed.
In many cases RUS is serving as the lead Agency for the
environmental review activities under the National Environmental Policy
Act and as the lead Agency in the National Historic Preservation Act,
Section 106 review process. Not being able to be as hands-on with face-
to-face meetings when necessary has been a deterrent in expediting the
review and permitting processes for these proposals.
Current borrowers were not consulted specifically on this proposal.
However, over the years, many of the RUS's Generation and Transmission
rural electric cooperative borrowers have requested to be allowed to
contribute travel expenses for environmental staff to attend meetings.
These past offers have not been accepted.
Question. How much revenue is USDA anticipating the user fee to
incur?
Answer. RUS estimated that the cost implications for borrowers
would be modest. The user fee will be limited to travel and per diem
expenses. RUS estimated that the costs per project would be no more
than $15,000-20,000 per project ($2,500 per travel event at a maximum
of 8 travel events per project). RUS estimated that these costs would
apply to 4-7 projects per year. With a cost of $15,000-20,000 per
project for 7 projects, the total estimated revenue would be between
$105,000 and $140,000 per year.
Question. What will be the fee structure?
Answer. The fee structure would be limited to and based on the
General Services Administration's per diem rates, www.gsa.gov/perdiem.
Question. Will the additional resources for salaries and expenses
lead to additional RUS staff?
Answer. All proposed resources will be used by existing RUS staff
for travel and per diem expenses.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
commodities/crop insurance
Question. Secretary Vilsack, as you are aware, cotton producers are
transitioning to a crop insurance based safety net known as the Stacked
Income Protection Plan (STAX). Because STAX will not be available to
producers before the 2015 crop year, the 2014 Agricultural Act provides
transition assistance for upland cotton producers using their 2013
cotton base acres. It is my understanding that the payments for the
2014 crop should be available on or after October 1, 2014. This is
especially important since the only other risk management tools
available to cotton growers for the 2014 crop are existing crop
insurance products and the marketing assistance loan.
Will it be necessary for the Department to conduct a separate
signup for the cotton transition payments and if so what information
will be required from participants?
Answer. There will be a separate signup for the cotton transition
program later this summer. Among other eligibility criteria, eligible
producers should have an upland cotton base on the farm as of September
30, 2013. Additionally, the Department plans to make STAX available for
the 2015 crop year, and believes it will be able to offer coverage on
most of the traditional planted cotton acreage. Materials and areas of
availability are projected to be released by late summer 2014.
Question. When do you expect to hold signups for cotton transition
assistance?
Answer. We anticipate signup will begin later this summer and
payments will be made this fall.
Question. Mr. Secretary, it is important to note that beyond
defining the term ``significant contribution of active personal
management,'' the 2014 farm bill does not instruct the Department to
make any changes to the way individuals and entities are determined to
be ``actively engaged in farming.'' The limited authority Congress
granted the Department to change this definition was designed to
complement existing rules and regulations. It is vitally important to
maintain consistency, to the extent practicable, with the regulations
promulgated as a result of the significant changes made by the 2008
farm law which eliminated the three-entity rule and moved to direct
attribution. When implementing the provisions of the 2014 farm law, I
urge you to consider the extensive changes made as a result of the 2008
law and the costs to many operations associated with making the
organization changes necessary to comply with the new rules. Any
further changes that go beyond the scope of the new law will result in
unnecessary costs to growers and result in uncertainty for our farmers
and their lenders.
Additionally, the implementation of the new adjusted gross income
limit, as well as the new unified payment limitation, in 2014 will have
a substantial impact on a wide range of farming operations. The
magnitude of that impact is particularly daunting when such changes are
considered in combination with the application of possible changes to
the definition of ``significant contribution of active personal
management'' beginning with the 2015 crop year. Some farmers will need
to make substantial adjustments in their farm plans in order to comply
with the new rules, and those farmers who will no longer be eligible
for program benefits will have to take that into consideration when
financing their 2015-18 crops.
In order for these reforms and related provisions to be well
understood and implemented in a manner that minimizes confusion, the
Department should conduct outreach to affected stakeholders in advance
of promulgating a regulation and, in so doing, provide adequate time
for public comment on any proposed changes to the regulations.
I would expect that USDA will publish these regulations for public
comment at the earliest possible date so our farmers have an
opportunity to review and comment on the proposal. The timing of
publication of the final rule and flexibility to comply with the new
regulations is paramount to applying the new requirements in a manner
that will be fair, equitable, and enhance program integrity.
When do you intend to publish the proposed rule?
Answer. USDA intends to have the proposed rule published by the end
of 2014.
Question. What process, including outreach activity, is the
Department considering to develop the proposed definition for
``significant contribution of active personal management?''
Answer. USDA conducted a listening session on March 27, 2014,
regarding all Farm Service Agency and Risk Management Agency programs,
including a session on the forthcoming actively engaged proposal. The
proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register to seek public
comment. We will also issue a press release soliciting comments.
Further outreach, public meetings or avenues for public input will be
explored as the proposal is developed.
Question. Will the Department consider the impact of these changes
on different regions and organizational structures as suggested in the
conference report?
Answer. Yes, the Department is taking into consideration the
regional and organizational structure impacts of any proposed changes.
Question. Will the Department provide adequate time for comment and
for adjustment to any changes to the rules?
Answer. The public will be provided with sufficient time to
evaluate the proposed rule and submit comments for consideration.
Question. Please provide some insight regarding how USDA intends to
manage structural changes made to operations as a result of the new
farm bill programs and new eligibility requirements.
Answer. Although this cannot be assessed before public comments are
received, or before the regulation is promulgated, USDA will closely
consider and evaluate these issues regarding the proposed definition
change during the rulemaking comment period.
Question. Will you commit to ensuring that farmers are not
penalized for making changes to the structure of their operations to
minimize regulatory burdens and manage risks associated with modern
agriculture, including changes in land values and changes in operating
and compliance costs?
Answer. The process for the proposed rule provides an opportunity
to evaluate and assess the issues associated with the development of
the proposed definition.
Question. Mr. Secretary, the president's fiscal year 2015 proposed
budget for the Department includes $14.3 billion in reforms to crop
insurance. As you know, the president signed the Agricultural Act of
2014 into law on February 7 of this year. This new law, which Congress
debated for almost 3 years, makes significant reductions in the title I
safety net programs in favor of greater reliance on the crop insurance
programs. In fact, the new law reduces the overall level of Federal
financial support for production agriculture even though the risk of
loss emanating from natural disasters and global market disruptions
persist.
My farmers in Mississippi asked for a new farm bill that would
provide a reasonable period of certainty in a financial safety net as
they carry on in a highly risky business. We often hear from this
administration about how we need to move to risk management programs
and away from paying farmers just for being farmers. Given the lower
rates of participation in crop insurance in my area and the additional
cost of premiums, it wasn't an easy task to convince my growers in
Mississippi that they needed to balance price risk protection programs
with crop insurance as the cornerstone of the farm safety net. I fear
that if the proposed budget cuts were adopted, crop insurance may
remain affordable for some parts of the country and become a less
viable tool for other parts of the country, specifically the mid-south.
The administration's budget proposal to cut crop insurance just a few
weeks after Congress minimized the strength of the traditional title I
safety net is deeply concerning.
The President's budget proposal indicates the rate of return for
crop insurance companies is currently expected to be 14 percent and
that an additional $2.9 billion can be removed from the reimbursement
rate of administrative and operating expenses without harming the
delivery system. The simple statement equating conditions 8 years
earlier with today's program is not compelling.
What was the actual pre-tax rate of return on retained premium for
crop insurance companies for the crop insurance years 2010, 2011, 2012,
and 2013?
Answer. The rate of return on retained premium for insurance
companies is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return on
Reinsurance year retained
premium
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010.................................................... +32 percent
2011.................................................... +18 percent
2012.................................................... -15 percent
2013 \1\................................................ +8 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of April 2014. The return is likely to decrease somewhat as
additional losses are reported.
Question. Please provide the analysis, including any and all
assumptions therein, for the discovery of these rates of return on
retained premium for the crop insurance companies.
Answer. No assumptions have been made. The rate of return on
retained premium for crop insurance companies for 2010 through 2013 is
calculated directly from accounting data maintained by the Department.
Question. In 2011, the administration stated that the crop
insurance companies had an expected rate of return of 14 percent
(``Living Within our Means and Investing for the Future, The
President's Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction,'' page 18).
That claim was made again with each of the President's budget proposals
for fiscal year 2013, fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015. Please
provide the assumptions and analysis that has supported this 14-percent
estimate in each of these years and indicate how the performance of the
program in the most recent years has or has not affected this estimate.
Answer. At the time the current Standard Reinsurance Agreement
(SRA) was implemented in 2011, the expected rate of return on retained
premium for insurance companies was around 14 percent. This is the
assumption that was used in the President's budget proposals for fiscal
year 2013, fiscal year 2014, and fiscal year 2015.
At this point in time, complete data is available for only 2 years
under the current SRA--therefore, at this time RMA does not have a
basis to change the original return of 14 percent.
Question. Please provide the analysis, including any and all
assumptions therein, for the discovery of total administrative and
operating expenses by the private delivery system.
Answer. The total administrative and operating (A&O) subsidy paid
to insurance companies is calculated directly from accounting data
maintained by the Department. The total A&O subsidy for the last
several years is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
[Dollars in billions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year A&O subsidy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010.................................................... $1.37
2011.................................................... 1.36
2012.................................................... 1.40
2013.................................................... 1.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How will the total cost of selling, servicing and
adjusting polices change with the addition of the new crop insurance
programs and other requirements contained in the new farm bill?
Answer. The impact of the 2014 farm bill on the cost of selling,
servicing, and adjusting policies is not anticipated to change
significantly with the addition of new programs. The most significant
changes, the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) and Stacked Income
Protection (STAX) programs, will be accompanied by additional A&O
subsidy paid to insurance companies for their costs of selling and
servicing. In addition, they will have the opportunity to earn
underwriting gains.
Question. If costs increase, will the insurance companies be
provided any additional compensation?
Answer. The two most significant changes to the crop insurance
program, SCO and STAX, will be accompanied by additional A&O subsidy
paid to insurance companies based upon the additional premium collected
from sales of the new programs. These reimbursements will not be
subject to the A&O cap in the current SRA.
To the extent that most other farm bill measures will likely result
in the increase of crop insurance policies sold, such increase in sales
will be accompanied by additional A&O subsidy reimbursement, subject to
any applicable A&O reimbursement limitations as specified under the
current SRA.
conservation
Question. Secretary Vilsack, the 2014 Agricultural Act consolidates
several existing conservation program authorities into a single
initiative known as the Regional Conservation Partnership Program
(RCPP) with the primary purpose of leveraging Federal conservation
investments in conjunction with local and regional partners. Projects
carried out through this new authority are to improve soil quality,
water quality and quantity, and wildlife habitat on a regional or
watershed scale in areas of the country with a significant presence of
agricultural production. One major component of the program allows for
the Secretary of Agriculture to designate eight Critical Conservation
Areas as geographic priorities within the program. Can you share with
me the timeline and process by which the Department of Agriculture
intends to name these regions of the country? I would like to request
that you and your staff keep me aware of any significant developments
as this implementation process advances and I hope that the region of
the Lower Mississippi River Valley receives serious consideration for a
designation as a Critical Conservation Area within the new Regional
Conservation Partnership Program.
Answer. USDA's NRCS has been reviewing the application of the
statutory criteria to various watersheds through a rigorous, science-
based process in order to designate Critical Conservation Areas (CCAs)
under the RCPP program. The Lower Mississippi River Valley is among the
watersheds receiving serious consideration for designation. Selections
of Critical Conservation Areas along with the RCPP announcement of
program funding are expected in late May or early June.
Question. Secretary Vilsack, upon enactment of the 2014
Agricultural Act several conservation programs were repealed causing
USDA to request a new apportionment from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to implement the new law. It is my understanding that USDA
has not received this new apportionment to date; however, the
Department's anticipated timeframe to start new enrollments for certain
conservation programs is this summer. Do you think that USDA will be
able to conduct sign-ups and obligate all of the fiscal year 2014
funding in this amount of time? What will happen to the remainder
fiscal year 2014 funding in the event USDA cannot spend all of it
within that timeframe?
Answer. USDA has been working to update guidance and to effectuate
system changes necessary to manage the funding for the continuing and
new conservation programs, and is currently holding sign-ups and
processing applications for most of the conservation programs. USDA
plans to obligate funds for all programs by September 30, 2014;
however, any unobligated funds will be fully utilized in the first
quarter of fiscal year 2015.
Question. The 2014 Agricultural Act establishes a single easement
program, the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), through
consolidating the authorities of the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP),
the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP), and the Farmland Protection
Program (FPP). Earlier this month you made some remarks at the
Commodity Classic in San Antonio, Texas, in regards to the
implementation plan and program sign-ups USDA intends to conduct for
the new easement program during the remainder of fiscal year 2014,
particularly with regards to enrollment of new wetland easements. I
understand there is currently a backlog associated with prior year
enrollments of WRP restoration agreements totaling approximately $500
million. Can you tell me how USDA intends to address this backlog in
the context of implementing a new, consolidated easement program moving
forward? What is the status of USDA's Natural Resource Conservation
Service's (NRCS) fiscal year 2014 apportionment request associated with
this issue and do you anticipate any complications from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) in regards to receiving the full
apportionment request to address this backlog? Can you verify if NRCS
will be utilizing prior year funds available to address this problem or
will this issue have to be addressed through the use of new program
funding provided in the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program?
Answer. USDA has set WRP State acreage targets to complete closing
and restoration on prior year enrollments over an anticipated 3-year
timeframe. Closing and restoration targets are set for each State
annually and are administered at the State level. States will be able
to focus more effort on closing, restoration, and monitoring of prior
year enrollments of WRP in fiscal year 2014 due to the reduction of
land permitted to be enrolled in ACEP this year compared to prior year
WRP enrollment levels.
USDA will be utilizing prior year funds to address the closing and
restoration of prior year WRP enrollments to the fullest extent
possible. States will receive an allocation of the restored fiscal year
2009 through fiscal year 2013 WRP funds for financial and technical
assistance to complete this work on prior year enrollments. It is
anticipated that the outstanding work on existing enrollments will
consume the entire amount of the prior year WRP balances over the next
3 fiscal years. Once the prior year balances are exhausted, any
remaining work on prior year enrollments will be financed by new ACEP
funds.
Question. New conservation compliance requirements for crop
insurance eligibility were included in the 2014 Agricultural Act.
Section 2608 of the farm bill allows for USDA to implement the rules
and regulations for this new requirement as an interim rule effective
upon publication with an opportunity for public notice and comment.
Implementation of conservation compliance will require input from at
least the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS), and the Risk Management Agency (RMA). Many outside
organizations are interested in the outcome of this rule. Since the
rule will be effective upon publication, how much stakeholder
involvement will be part of this rulemaking process? Given that
landowners must be in compliance with sodbuster and swampbuster
requirements in order to receive payments from USDA, will USDA publish
a conservation compliance rule that reflects all commodity and crop
insurance program changes made by the 2014 Agricultural Act? Should
producers anticipate USDA to issue new regulations for conservation
compliance and all commodity and crop insurance program changes
simultaneously? In the past under the leadership of Chief Dave White,
NRCS tried to address a series of administrative issues in regards to
wetland compliance such as precipitation data, tile setback distances,
tract vs. field determinations, etc. What, if any, of these prior
issues will be addressed in the conservation compliance regulation?
Answer. NRCS, the Risk Management Agency (RMA) and the Farm Service
Agency (FSA) meet weekly to ensure a rulemaking, implementing the
conservation compliance provisions of the Agricultural Act of 2014
addresses all applicable FSA, NRCS and RMA programs. The original
conservation compliance provisions from the Food Security Act of 1985
that require producers to farm highly erodible lands according to an
approved conservation system and avoid draining wetlands remain. The
2014 FB rulemaking will offer the public an opportunity to comment.
Prior to initiating development of the rulemaking, FSA will hold a
listening session to receive public input on March 27, 2014.
RMA plans to amend crop insurance policies effective for the 2015
reinsurance year (July 1, 2014-June 30, 2015) to inform every
policyholder of the new conservation compliance requirements.
Section 2611 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 authorizes the
Secretary of Agriculture to use existing processes and procedures for
producers to certify compliance with the conservation compliance
provisions for crop insurance purposes. Therefore, RMA plans to use the
same processes that FSA has used since enactment of the 1985 Food
Security Act.
energy
Question. The 2014 Agricultural Act includes changes in the
Biobased Markets Program to address the treatment of forest products
within the Biopreferred Procurement and the Biobased labeling programs.
The conference report includes several examples USDA should consider as
it develops what constitutes ``innovative approaches'' in the growing,
harvesting, sourcing, procuring and manufacturing of forest products in
order to qualify for entry into the program. Will you commit to
implement the 2014 farm bill program changes as expeditiously as
possible, consistent with Congressional intent, and in a manner that
treats all forest products fairly?
Answer. USDA's BioPreferred program commits to implementing the
2014 farm bill program changes as expeditiously as possible, consistent
with Congressional intent, and in a manner that treats all forest
products fairly. We are also fully engaged in carrying out the law as
written in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act. To that
end, program staff first implemented a farm bill listening session
(March 2014) where we summarized the farm bill-mandated program changes
with approximately 100 program participants, outlined our approach for
accommodating these changes, and received stakeholder feedback on both.
BioPreferred program staff is also working with USDA's Forest
Products Laboratory (Madison, Wisconsin) to draft a procedure to
determine eligibility for wood-based products for mandatory Federal
preferred procurement and voluntary product certification and labeling.
catfish
Question. Secretary Vilsack, nearly 6 years have passed since the
enactment of the 2008 farm bill, which requires the USDA Food Safety
Inspection Service (FSIS) to create a new science-based program for the
inspection of all catfish--foreign and domestic. I am concerned about
the Department's seeming unwillingness to implement a law passed in
2008--and fortified in the 2014 farm bill--to ensure healthy and safer
food for consumers.
Can you provide me assurance that your Department will honor the
law enacted by the legislative body?
Answer. Upon the enactment of the 2014 farm bill, FSIS immediately
began the process of updating a draft final rule on catfish inspection
to ensure that it covers all fish in the order Siluriformes. FSIS
estimates that the final rule will be published by December 2014.
Question. What is the current status of the Catfish Inspection
Program, which was mandated by Congress to be fully implemented within
1 year of the date of enactment of the new farm bill law?
Answer. Upon enactment of the 2014 farm bill, FSIS immediately
began the process of updating a final rule on catfish inspection in
accordance with the law. FSIS has established an implementation team
representative of all program areas from within the Agency and pre-
decisional involvement discussions with union officials has been
scheduled to occur on May 1, 2014. FSIS estimates that the final rule
will be published by December 2014.
Question. What is the current status of your efforts to develop a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) in order to improve inter-agency cooperation and to ensure that
inspections of dual jurisdiction facilities are not duplicative?
Answer. Upon enactment of the 2014 farm bill, FSIS and the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) immediately began to engage in discussions
regarding a draft MOU in order to ensure that inspection oversight will
be non-duplicative, that requirements for domestic and foreign
Siluriformes products will be met, that information sharing will
support these efforts, and that the intent of Congress will otherwise
be met. A tentative MOU completion date is the end of April 2014.
food safety
Question. Secretary Vilsack, the administration is requesting fewer
funding resources for the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS)--
despite significant food safety challenges facing the American public
and a growing workload. Are you confident that FSIS can adequately
protect our Nation's food supply with fewer resources?
Answer. Yes, we are confident that FSIS can protect our Nation's
food supply. Both USDA and FSIS have created efficiencies that allow
for maintaining food safety while utilizing fewer resources.
Efficiencies such as billing process improvements, travel and other
operational cost reductions along with a consolidation of District
offices, are just a few actions the Agency has taken.
Question. We have received a number of inquiries from industry
stakeholders regarding USDA's efforts to finalize a rule intended to
improve poultry slaughter inspection systems, known as HIMP (HACCP-
based Improvement Models Project). When does the Department plan to
issue this final rule? In light of stakeholder concerns regarding
worker safety in slaughter facilities, how does the Department intend
to help improve safety conditions for workers?
Answer. FSIS is in the process of preparing a final rule on poultry
slaughter after considering the comments received. It is not possible
to provide a specific timeline. The safety of FSIS and plant employees
is an issue we take very seriously. FSIS received numerous comments
raising worker safety as a potential side effect of the rule, and it
has partnered with the Federal agencies responsible for worker safety
to address these concerns in the draft final rule. To ensure that food
safety improvements are made with the safety of workers in mind, FSIS
committed in the proposed rule to requesting five Health Hazard
Evaluations by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) to assess the impact these changes could have at poultry
facilities. The first of these evaluations has been completed, and the
report can be found at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2012-
0125-3204.pdf. In its report, NIOSH found that working conditions,
injury rates, and the number of birds processed per employee did not
change at this plant after implementation of HIMP. It also made several
recommendations to improve worker safety at this facility, which FSIS'
Administrator has called on the industry to implement. USDA will
continue to do everything it can within its authority to encourage
safer working conditions for its personnel and that of the
establishments it regulates.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jerry Moran
brazilian beef rule
Question. I am aware of the current proposed rulemaking which would
allow fresh and frozen beef from Brazil to be imported into the United
States. Can you tell me the last time that USDA employees were in
Brazil for site visits regarding this rule and what their impression is
of the commitment and follow through from the Brazilian Government to
keep the United States safe from foot and mouth disease?
Answer. USDA employees conducted a rigorous risk analysis of the
region and visited Brazil five times to verify and complement the
information provided by the Brazilian authorities. The most recent
visit was in February 2013. USDA officials found that the surveillance,
prevention, and control measures implemented by Brazil in the States
under consideration are sufficient to minimize the risk of introducing
foot and mouth disease (FMD) into the United States via the importation
of fresh/frozen boneless beef. Based on the findings of the visits and
through evaluation of the FMD situation in the region, APHIS concluded
that the commodity under consideration can be safely imported into the
United States.
Question. My constituents tell me that they have asked APHIS for
documents which were used to prepare this proposed rule, but they have
only received some of those documents and most of them were in
Portuguese. Did APHIS not translate these documents in order to take
their information into account while preparing this rule? Is there a
reason why the constituents shouldn't have access to these documents to
help them better understand USDA's rationale for this proposed rule?
Answer. USDA has shared all of the documents that Brazil provided
with any constituents who requested them. Some of the documents APHIS
used as a reference in the risk analysis were submitted to us in
Portuguese. USDA personnel involved in the evaluation had sufficient
language skills to read these documents without requiring they be
translated into English. In addition, in most instances the same or
related data were provided in other documents or verbally presented to
USDA during site visits. The information provided by Brazil and the
conclusions reached are thoroughly described in the risk analysis that
was made available for public comments.
Question. Did USDA work with our domestic producers while preparing
this rule?
Answer. In December 2013, USDA published a proposed rule to allow
fresh/frozen beef with foot and mouth disease mitigations to be
imported from 14 States of Brazil. In March 2014, the Department
extended the comment period by 60 days, until April 22, 2014. This
extension provided domestic producers with ample opportunity to
register their input on this rule. USDA is carefully considering all
comments received on this rule, and will determine whether to finalize
or modify the regulatory changes. USDA wants to continue encouraging
other countries to import more U.S. foods, but these countries will not
comply if we do not hold ourselves to the same standards we are asking
of the rest of the world.
dietary guidelines
Question. I know that USDA and HHS are in the process of working
through your scientific advisory committee process to potentially
modify the 2010 dietary guidelines. The dietary guidelines are
important to ensure they are based on the most recent scientific
information that's available to advise Americans on how a healthful
diet fits into their lifestyles. Reading some of the information after
the second meeting about topics outside of nutrition leaves me to
question the mission of this scientific advisory committee. Can you
please share what the mission of this committee is and what the process
will be moving forward?
Answer. Similar to previous Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committees,
the 2015 Advisory Committee is currently assessing the nutritional and
diet-related health status of Americans and will focus on topics that
they believe are relevant and timely. Because different factors are
important today than were a decade ago, the 2015 Committee is
addressing topics not addressed previously. The Advisory Committee has
acknowledged a need to move away from focusing on individual foods,
food groups, and nutrients, and is reviewing dietary patterns as a
whole. They view the diet to be more powerful as a sum of its parts
rather than being focused on specific aspects of the diet. They have
also noted that historical focus on specific aspects of the diet may
have had unintentional consequences that have not been beneficial to
diet and health over time. Since the diets of Americans have not
changed much over the past few decades and are in need of improvement,
the 2015 Advisory Committee has placed an emphasis on behaviors and
strategies for improving the diets of Americans. Also, in their initial
deliberations, the 2015 Advisory Committee identified a desire for
their recommendations to ensure a healthy, nutritious, safe, and
sustainable diet. The Advisory Committee has discussed the relationship
between sustainability and our ability to meet dietary goals in the
future, and plans to look at how other countries have addressed similar
topics in their guidelines, but they currently have not discussed using
sustainability as a rationale to change the dietary guidelines.
The dietary guidelines are based on the preponderance of current
scientific evidence, and the Committee is currently undergoing an
extensive, rigorous, transparent review process in developing their
report. This report will be used by the Government to create the
dietary guidelines. The Committee examines the state of current
scientific evidence using systematic reviews (with support from CNPP's
Nutrition Evidence Library), data analyses, and/or food pattern
modeling analyses. Additional sources of information may include
existing evidence-based reports, input from expert guest speakers, as
well as oral and written comments from the public. Thus, while
individual studies and personal testimonies may suggest convincing
results, the Committee is tasked to look at the evidence collectively
to inform their recommendations. The Advisory Committee is still early
in its review process and no conclusions or recommendations are
available at this time.
The Committee's report informs the Government's development of the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans, but not all recommendations made by
the Committee are included in the final policy document. The guidance
in the policy document is based on those topics with the strongest
available evidence. Additionally, some topics discussed in the
Committee's report may only be included contextually in the dietary
guidelines and thus do not have policy implications.
it investments
Question. Describe the role of the Department of Agriculture Chief
Information Officer in the oversight of IT purchases. How is this
person involved in the decision to make an IT purchase, determine its
scope, oversee its contract, and oversee the product's continued
operation and maintenance?
Answer. In compliance with the Clinger-Cohen Act, USDA established
a Capital Planning and Investment Control division in the Office of the
Chief Information Officer (OCIO) that also has IT Governance
responsibility. This division reviews USDA investments and provides a
monthly report to the Chief Information Officer (CIO).
In addition, USDA's annual appropriations act that requires the CIO
approval requests CIO approval for new systems or major upgrades to
existing systems. Moreover, the purchase of information technology
projects over $25,000 requires written approval by the CIO.
Technical reviews of investment progress through the System
Development Life Cycle (SDLC) are handled by the Integrated Advisory
Board (IAB), chaired by the Associate CIO for Technology, Planning,
Architecture, and E-Government. The IAB is comprised of the following:
Enterprise Architecture Advisory Council, Capital Planning Advisory
Council, Enterprise Security Governance Council, and the Critical
Partners Advisory Group. Each of these bodies is made up of subject
matter experts (SMEs) from each of the USDA Mission Areas (reflecting
USDA Agencies and Staff Offices) within the areas of capital planning,
security, enterprise architecture, records management, Section 508,
budget, procurement, and enterprise infrastructure and applications. At
each stage of the SDLC, the IAB evaluates IT investments to make
recommendations to agencies and offices on corrective actions and to
make final recommendations to the CIO and senior policy officials.
Question. Describe the existing authorities, organizational
structure, and reporting relationship of your Department Chief
Information Officer. Note and explain any variance from that prescribed
in the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (aka, the
Clinger-Cohen Act) for the above.
Answer. The Office of the Chief Information Officer is a component
staff office within Departmental Management, which is led by the
Assistant Secretary for Administration. This allows for regular
interaction with other staff office directors. However, the CIO reports
directly to the Secretary on matters regarding information technology,
consistent with the Clinger-Cohen Act. The existing delegation of
authority for the Chief Information Officer can be found in Secretary's
memorandum 1030-30, dated August 8, 1996, at 7 CFR section 2.89.
Question. What formal or informal mechanisms exist in your
Department to ensure coordination and alignment within the CXO
community (i.e., the Chief Information Officer, the Chief Acquisition
Officer, the Chief Finance Officer, the Chief Human Capital Officer,
and so on)? How does that alignment flow down to Agency subcomponents?
Answer. The formal mechanisms are two-fold. First, in 2009,
Departmental Management was created as an umbrella organization that
includes several administrative offices. This structure allows the CXO
community to be brought together on a regular basis to coordinate
efforts. Departmental Management is led by the Assistant Secretary for
Administration, who also serves as the Chief Acquisition Officer for
USDA.
Second, specifically pertaining to IT, the CXO positions are
represented on USDA's Executive Information Technology Investment
Resources Board, or E-Board, chaired by the Deputy Secretary. In
addition to the CXOs, the E-Board also includes the Assistant Secretary
for Administration (vice-chair) and USDA's Under Secretaries. The E-
Board ensures that USDA maximizes the value and manages the risk of IT
investments; aligns investment recommendations with the USDA mission,
strategic plan, budget, enterprise architecture, and information
security; develops corrective action plans for IT investments that are
not performing in accordance with established cost, schedule, or
technical/business performance; and works to minimize duplicative or
overlapping investments across USDA.
Informally, the Chief Information Officer and the Director of the
Office of Procurement and Property Management (OPPM) meet bi-weekly
with a few staff from the OCIO and OPPM to explore opportunities for
improving the acquisition of IT goods and services. This coordination
has yielded both a closer working relationship and several specific
initiatives. For example, OPPM staff have been instrumental in
assisting in the development of several enterprise contracts that have
saved the Department thousands of dollars and reduced security risks by
eliminating the use of old versions of software that were vulnerable to
hackers. Through the utilization of these enterprise contracts, USDA
has eliminated the widespread duplication of software. Working directly
with agencies, the Department as a whole will have achieved a
combination of cost-savings and cost-avoidance from eliminating
contracts totaling $1.23 million between 2013 the end of fiscal year
2014.
Question. How much of the Department's budget goes to
Demonstration, Modernization, and Enhancement of IT systems as opposed
to supporting existing and ongoing programs and infrastructure? How has
this changed in the last 5 years?
Answer. During the past 5 years, the Department consolidated and
completed the migration of all USDA agencies into one enterprise
financial system through the Financial Management Modernization
Initiative (FMMI). Consequently, the Department's financial systems
currently have no budget going to Demonstration, Modernization, and
Enhancement (DME) for IT systems. FMMI completed the DME phase in June
2013. FMMI is currently in the steady state operations and maintenance
state, supporting existing and ongoing programs and infrastructure.
Question. Where and how is the Department of Agriculture taking
advantage of this administration's shared services initiative? How do
you identify and utilize existing capabilities elsewhere in Government
or industry as opposed to recreating them internally?
Answer. The Department is enthusiastic about our opportunities to
participate in the administration's shared services initiative, both as
a service provider to other Federal agencies, and as a consumer of
financial services. The overall vision of the Financial Management Line
of Business (FMLoB) is to improve the cost, quality, and performance of
financial management (FM) systems by leveraging shared service
solutions and by implementing other Government-wide reforms that foster
efficiencies in Federal financial operations.
In fiscal year 2014, the Department has completed the formal
application process to become a financial shared service provider. The
Department's Financial Management Modernization Initiative (FMMI) has
resulted in a state-of-the-art financial management system that all
USDA agencies use. Our objective is to make USDA's financial management
system available for other Federal entities, providing economies of
scale and cost savings across the Federal Government. Our National
Finance Center (NFC) offers a complete Enterprise Resource Planning
(ERP) software solution, which integrates all aspects of financial
management services with a program management support structure.
The NFC's mission is to provide effective and efficient tools and
services that are used to ensure proper financial management at the
Department-wide level, and to ensure that adequate financial records
are maintained for accountability and reporting to the Inspector
General, Congress, other Federal agencies, and to the public. NFC
accomplishes this by maintaining the FMMI ERP financial management
system, reporting through the Financial Data Warehouse, an automated
cash reconciliation work sheet used for daily reconciliation with the
United States Treasury, the Purchase Card Management System, the Travel
System, the Personal Property System, and the Purchase Order System.
USDA's primary objectives for this NFC shared services effort are
to provide:
--an enterprise financial management service that allows other
organizations to reap the benefits in less time and less money
with less risk and increased service quality as compared to
starting from scratch with a new ERP or financial management
implementation;
--integration with NFC payroll processing services;
--complete audit compliant financial solution with full documentation
meeting financial requirements;
--continuous process improvements, operational and organizational
improvement, for those shared services retained in the future
State portfolio;
--more powerful and flexible financial management and reporting;
--administrative payments, collections, and certifications;
--computerized editing/auditing capabilities; and
--customer focus/advocacy to provide the best possible customer
service and support.
The Department is also looking for opportunities to leverage
expertise and services from other agencies for applications that they
could provide more efficiently. For example, the Treasury is offering a
Centralized Receivable service. USDA has also scheduled an April
briefing by the Grants Center of Excellence at the Department of Health
and Human Services. The Department is committed to using its resources
with optimal effectiveness and efficiency regardless of where these
services are obtained.
Question. Provide short, two-page, summaries of three recent IT
program successes, projects that were delivered on time, within budget,
and delivered the promised functionality and benefits to the end user.
How does your Department define ``success'' in IT program management?
Answer. [Follows:]
success #1: usda financial management systems
USDA plays a critical role in the financial management of the
Federal Government by providing financial services to other Federal
agencies. USDA's National Finance Center (NFC) administers and operates
over 20 financial and administrative service systems in support of all
agencies of USDA and over 100 non-USDA customers. These systems include
such services as: payroll/personnel, central accounting, billing and
collections, and travel. In 2013, USDA processed time and attendance
and payroll for over 655,000 Federal employees on a bi-weekly basis,
including the Department of Commerce, and others.
NFC has successfully invested in the reengineering and operation of
financial management and administrative systems in USDA, consistent
with the goals and objectives of both the USDA 5-Year Financial
Management Plan and the Chief Financial Officer's Strategic Plan. This
has resulted in three important improvements in financial management
for the Federal Government.
The Financial Management Modernization Initiative (FMMI) project
was initiated in 2009 to modernize the technology underlying the USDA
financial system environment. This initiative replaced the Corporate
Financial Management System (CFMS), including the mainframe-based
Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS) financial system, with
SAP Inc. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), migrating the current
distributed, multi-instance mainframe system to a federally compliant,
consolidated, single-instance Web-based system. FMMI is operational in
all USDA Department Staff Offices and Agencies.
USDA has also increased the usefulness of financial information to
its customers by deploying SAP Inc. business software, including the
SAP BusinessObjects (BOBJ) reporting tool, SAP HANA, and more. The BOBJ
technologically advanced reporting system delivers an ad-hoc financial
reporting tool and a comprehensive dashboard delivery tool. This
implementation continues to provide a foundation for future plans to
support real-time reporting. BOBJ has approximately 4,000 users and
continues growing.
Similarly, USDA deployed the SAP HANA software as a means of
gaining access to real-time financial data, which increases the
accuracy of financial projections. The Department was an early Federal
adopter of HANA, and has presented demonstrations to numerous Federal
audiences.
USDA also completed software enhancements to the SAP ERP Central
Component (ECC) and Governance Risk and Compliance (GRC) software
components, Business Intelligence (BI) and Public Budget Formulation
(PBF).
Overall, USDA developed, tested, and implemented in excess of 250
software changes related to FMMI that enhanced USDA's ability to
operate efficiently, including: timely payments to vendors, improved
billing and collections processing, and enhanced reporting. These
changes were a combination of enhancements and corrective actions that
improved the usability of the financial system and the accuracy of the
data reported.
Finally, USDA has improved IT governance and monitoring of its
financial systems. For example, USDA became a certified SAP Center of
Excellence (CoE). This effort includes the strengthening of service
delivery, process controls, governance and customer advocacy. The USDA
also initiated the establishment of a business process repository to
establish a single point of access for all system monitoring and
enhancements and business process modifications.
Through these financial system IT modernization and enhancement
projects, USDA has improved the Federal Government's ability to conduct
financial business with accuracy, timeliness, and integrity. This
benefits the many private industry partners with which the Government
does business, along with the Federal workforce and their communities
who can rely on prompt, accurate payments. For example, the
Department's financial systems have successfully provided seamless,
uninterrupted operation and delivery of payroll to Federal employees
despite the impact of major disruptions such as the 2013 Government
shutdown, weather storm closures, and Hurricanes Sandy and Irene. This
continues the tradition demonstrated by the USDA's financial system
uninterrupted reliability in spite of the destruction of our primary
data center by Hurricane Katrina.
Question. What best practices have emerged and been adopted from
these recent IT program successes? What have proven to be the most
significant barriers encountered to more common or frequent IT program
successes?
Answer. The USDA continues to address Agency issues and concerns
resulting from their increased knowledge of FMMI by conducting business
process re-engineering and listening sessions. This results in a clear
understanding of the issues being faced, expedites the correction
process and builds a trusted relationship between the Department and
agencies. The outcome continues to enhance the software and business
process improvements.
Question. Describe the progress being made in your Department on
the transition to new, cutting-edge technologies and applications such
as cloud, mobility, social networking, and so on. What progress has
been made in the CloudFirst and ShareFirst initiatives?
Answer. The USDA National Finance Center (NFC) already provides
cloud-like services for Department applications and the Financial
Management Modernization Initiative (FMMI) system. The Department is
evaluating how to utilize and provide cloud services to better support
our mission. The models offered by NFC can be grouped into two
categories: (1) Software as a Service (SaaS) in which software is
deployed as a hosted service and accessed over the Internet, and (2)
Platform as a Service (PaaS) in which platforms can be used to more
efficiently develop and deploy new applications. The NFC is working
towards FedRAMP certification for both SaaS and PaaS service offerings.
Question. How does the Department of Agriculture implement
acquisition strategies that involve each of the following: early
collaboration with industry; RFP's with performance measures that tie
to strategic performance objectives; and risk mitigation throughout the
life of the contract?
Answer. USDA has developed management guidelines that are used in
acquisitions throughout the Department. These include the following:
--(1) Early collaboration with industry through market research, and
interactive vendor participation in pre-proposal activities
such as the Request for Information (RFI) process.
--(2) All contract RFPs are performance-based, which reduces the risk
to the Government. All service contracts include performance
measures and metrics that are tracked on a regular basis (bi-
weekly, monthly, and quarterly). These are tied to the
Department's strategic performance objectives by the USDA
budget formulation process.
--(3) Risk management is performed for each contract throughout its
complete lifecycle. The contractor is required to submit and
maintain a risk management plan, and provide a risk register
with mitigation strategies at least monthly. In addition, each
contractor is required to submit a quality assurance plan with
appropriate surveillance metrics.
Question. According to the Office of Personnel Management, 46
percent of the more than 80,000 Federal IT workers are 50 years of age
or older, and more than 10 percent are 60 or older. Just 4 percent of
the Federal IT workforce is under 30 years of age. Does your Department
have such demographic imbalances? How is it addressing them? Does this
create specific challenges for attracting and maintaining a workforce
with skills in cutting edge technologies? What initiatives are underway
to build your technology workforce's capabilities?
Answer. Yes, USDA shares these demographic imbalances with other
Federal agencies. We have implemented a succession plan to actively
recruit IT talent under 30 years of age. The Department actively
recruits through college visits and via college alumni within USDA to
attract younger recruits. In addition, we are cross-training USDA
resources to shift responsibilities from IT personnel resources
scheduled for retirement.
Question. What information does your Department collect on its IT
and program management workforce? Please include, for example, details
about current staffing versus future needs, development of the talent
pipeline, special hiring authorities, and known knowledge gaps.
Answer. The Department uses the individual development plan (IDP)
to plan and monitor employee skills and knowledge. USDA agencies
maintain a 2-year staffing plan to ensure alignment to the mission of
the organization. This combination, along with new employee recruiting,
acts as our talent pipeline to ensure the Department has skilled
employees in sufficient numbers to fulfill its evolving needs. USDA
also has special hiring authorities for the IT workforce. Where
knowledge gaps are identified, the Department uses contracting services
to fill these gaps as required until such time as they can be
integrated into the permanent IT workforce. For example, the Department
uses contractors from Deloitte and Accenture to provide subject matter
expertise in emerging Big Data analytics.
______
Questions Submitted By Senator John Hoeven
county offices
Question. Mr. Secretary, as USDA's budget proposal includes closing
250 FSA county offices, I want to make sure you are aware of the fact
that North Dakota FSA offices are having difficulty in the western part
of North Dakota recruiting and retaining FSA personnel. Can you tell us
how the Department determines which offices should close? Are you
conducting some type of workload assessment or simply selecting offices
by physical location?
Answer. FSA is aware of the challenges western North Dakota is
experiencing with recruiting and retaining employees in FSA service
centers. FSA has been working with the States in the Bakken area to
lessen the impact of these issues by providing approval for additional
hiring and authority to offer relocation and retention incentive
payments. In preparing the fiscal year 2015 budget, FSA estimated the
potential to close or consolidate approximately 250 offices. This
projected level assumed continued declining funding as evidenced in
previous years, and a shift in workload activity. Although FSA will
benefit from the efficiencies gained through office consolidations, no
office closure plan has been approved at this time and the Agency has
no compiled a list of specific offices to close. Before attempting to
close any office USDA is committed, per statue, to hold public meetings
in each affected county within 30 days of any announcement of pending
closure.
Question. Mr. Secretary, as you know, the Federal crop insurance
program provides producers with risk management tools to address crop
yield and/or revenue losses on their farms and is the best tool North
Dakota farmers have for managing risks inherent to farming. I
understand that the provision to link conservation compliance to crop
insurance, despite my opposition to its inclusion, is being done on an
accelerated rule making process and will be put out as an interim final
rule. Can you share with me how you plan to develop the rule to ensure
penalties for farmers found out of compliance are not unreasonable and
are widely understood?
We included wetlands mitigation bank provision in the farm bill to
help farmers deal with conservation compliance costs. Will you commit
to working with our producers to make sure that the bank works for
North Dakota farmers?
Answer. USDA plans to amend crop insurance policies effective for
the 2015 reinsurance year (July 1, 2014-June 30, 2015) to inform every
policyholder of the new conservation compliance requirements, and
publish a rule (7 CFR, part 12) late this summer to provide the details
involved with connecting conservation compliance with crop insurance.
Additionally, a fact sheet and frequently asked questions will be
published to assist in educating producers. Finally, USDA intends to
provide a list of policyholders currently out of compliance with the
provisions to their approved insurance providers during the 2015
reinsurance year to extend individual outreach. Any violations do not
result in the loss of premium subsidy until the reinsurance year
following the violation.
Question. Mr. Secretary, USDA's budget for fiscal year 2015 once
again calls for over $14 billion over 10 years in cuts to the crop
insurance program. When I talk to North Dakota farmers, they tell me
crop insurance is absolutely critical to their operations, critical to
their ability to make it through bad weather and markets. That's why I
supported language in the recently passed farm bill called the ``SRA
Sideboard'' provision that prevents USDA from cutting crop insurance
unilaterally through what are called Standard Reinsurance Agreements
(SRAs). Is it your understanding that none of USDA's proposed $14
billion in crop insurance cuts could be implemented without an act of
Congress?
Answer. Yes, the recent farm bill language amended the Federal Crop
Insurance Act making the SRA budget neutral with respect to A&O subsidy
and the financial terms related to risk sharing. In addition, terms for
premium subsidy are also prescribed in the act and may only be changed
by Congress.
wetland mitigation
Question. Mr. Secretary, included in the farm bill is report
language that recommends NRCS adopt an acre-for-acre mitigation
standard; given congressional intent in this area, how is the
Department adjusting wetland mitigation policy?
Answer. The Department is aware of the need to make wetland
mitigation options more transparent and available for producers. In
certain situations current policy allows for mitigation to occur on an
acre-for-acre basis, as recommended by the farm bill report. These
situations include farmed wetlands and wetland sites with disturbed
herbaceous vegetation.
wic food package
Question. Mr. Secretary, on behalf of North Dakota's potato
growers, I am disappointed by the Department's recent decision to
exclude fresh white potatoes in the food packages for WIC in
contradiction to the clear direction Congress gave you in the fiscal
year 2014 Omnibus. What troubles me is the lack of consistency in the
program and its development. For example, Both the 2005 and the 2010
DGA notes that potassium and dietary fiber are nutrients of concern,
potatoes are specifically excluded from purchase despite that both
nutrients are readily available in fresh white potatoes at an
affordable price;
Should changes to WIC food packages be based on the most recent
Dietary Guidelines for Americans?
Answer. The WIC food packages are based on scientific
recommendations from the National Academies' Institute of Medicine
(IOM).
The restriction of white potatoes, which was recommended by the IOM
in 2005 and has been in place since 2007, is based on data indicating
that consumption of starchy vegetables meets or exceeds recommended
amounts, and food intake data showing that white potatoes are the most
widely consumed vegetable.
Continuing the exclusion of white potatoes maintains consistency
with the IOM's recommendations and minimizes the introduction of
additional confusion for WIC participants. That said, the Department
recognizes the language included in the fiscal year 2014 appropriations
bill expressing the expectations of Congress that all varieties of
vegetables be included in the food package. Additionally, the
Department continues to be committed to a science-based review process
for the food packages provided by WIC. In order to accommodate both of
these goals, as we advised Congress in our February 28 letter, the
Department intends to jumpstart its regular review of the WIC food
packages in order to seek the assistance of the IOM to learn if the
basis for its recommendation for the exclusion of white potatoes from
the WIC food packages is still supported.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
country of origin labeling
Question. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is expected to make a
ruling this summer on the ongoing dispute over country-of-origin
labeling (COOL) requirements brought against the United States by
Canada and Mexico. While I have supported COOL since its inception in
the 2002 farm bill, I am concerned with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's decision to continue to implement a final rule,
``Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork . . . ,'' despite
direction from Congress not to. The Fiscal Year 2014 Consolidated
Appropriations Act strongly recommends the ``Department delay
implementation and enforcement of the final rule (78 Federal Register
31367) until the WTO has completed all decisions related to cases WT/
DS384 and WT/DS386.'' It is my understanding that the Department
continues to expend resources to implement the final rule, including
conducting outreach and education for employees who will be responsible
for compliance activities.
What actions will the Department take to comply with the Fiscal
Year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act?
If the Department does not comply, what--if any--legal requirements
prevent you from doing so?
Answer. USDA is proceeding with enforcing the May 2013 final rule
in accordance with the statute and with the need to bring us into
compliance with our WTO obligations. Should the United States not
enforce the May 2013 final rule, it could be construed that USDA has
not taken action to address the findings by the WTO panel.
wic food package
Question. On February 28, the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued
a final rule to update the food package for the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). I commend the
Department's work to increase access to fruits and vegetables, whole
grains and low-fat dairy based products. I also believe that the WIC
food package should be based on the best scientific research available.
However, I would like to know more about the metrics used to justify
the continued exclusion of fresh white potatoes. Specifically, in a
letter to this subcommittee, you stated that ``the restriction of white
potatoes, which was recommended by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in
2005 and has been in place since 2007, is based on data indicating that
consumption of starchy vegetables meets or exceeds recommended amounts,
and food intake data showing that white potatoes are the most widely
used vegetable.'' However, in your testimony you note that the WIC food
package was updated to ``better reflect current nutrition science and
dietary recommendations.'' According to 2009-2010 data from the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), women and children are
consuming too few starchy vegetables today. Women aged 19-30 consume
only 2.4 cups per week, meeting less than half of the 2010 dietary
guidelines recommended intake of 5 cups. Children also fall short of
the 2010 dietary guidelines with girls aged 2-4 consuming 0.6 cups per
week less than the maximum recommendations and boys in the same age
group consuming 1.4 cups less.
Given the 2010 dietary guidelines recommended intake and CDC
consumption findings for women and children, can you explain which
metrics the Department used to determine that ``consumption of starchy
vegetables meets or exceeds recommended amounts?''
Answer. The changes to the WIC food packages were made based on
scientific recommendations from the National Academies' Institute of
Medicine (IOM). The IOM was charged with reviewing the nutritional
needs of the WIC population--low income infants, children, and
pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding women who are at nutritional
risk--and recommending changes to the WIC food packages. The exclusion
of white potatoes, as recommended by the IOM, is based on the amounts
suggested in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) for
consumption of starchy vegetables; food intake data indicating that
consumption of starchy vegetables meets or exceeds these suggested
amounts; and food intake data showing that white potatoes are the most
widely used vegetable.
The 2010 dietary guidelines were issued subsequent to the IOM
report that formed the basis of the WIC food package changes. IOM
determined that the addition of white potatoes in the WIC food packages
would not support the goal of expanding the types and varieties of
fruits and vegetables used by program participants. The next regular
review of the WIC food package is set to begin this year. IOM will
utilize current science and the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans,
when available, as it develops its recommendations to the Department to
inform our next course of action with respect to the WIC food package.
Question. Furthermore, what nutritional data was used to justify
the continued exclusion of fresh white potatoes? The white potato is a
known source of potassium, fiber, vitamin C, and many B vitamins.
Several of these vitamins have been found to be lacking or inadequate
in the diets of young children by the IOM.
Answer. The final WIC Food Package Rule continues to authorize a
wide variety of choices within the authorized fruit and vegetable
options. Additionally, the final rule includes several significant
improvements to the food package that more closely align with the
National Academies' Institute of Medicine's (IOM) recommendations and
will increase WIC participants' access to fruits and vegetables, whole
grains and low-fat dairy.
Consistent with a major recommendation of the Dietary Guidelines
for Americans, increasing fruit and vegetable intakes by WIC
participants was cited as a priority by the IOM. This provision
supports the goal of expanding the types and varieties of fruits and
vegetables available to program participants. The WIC Program does,
however, continue to promote white potatoes as a healthful source of
nutrients and an important part of a healthful diet, through nutrition
education provided to WIC participants. WIC clients who also
participate in the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP), may use
their FMNP vouchers to purchase white potatoes offered at farmers'
markets.
Question. Can you provide a timeline for when the Department
intends to begin its regular review of the WIC food package? What steps
will you take during this process to ensure the best scientific
research available is used to determine both sufficient consumption and
nutritional value when determining what should or should not be
included in the food package?
Answer. The Department continues to be committed to a science-based
review process for the food packages WIC provides and intends to
jumpstart its regular review of the WIC food package. Initially
scheduled for mid-to-late 2015, the review is now set to begin more
than a year earlier, so that we can seek the assistance of the
Institute of Medicine (IOM), to learn if the basis for its
recommendation for the exclusion of white potatoes from the WIC food
packages is still supported by the most current science available. This
review will incorporate current science and the 2015 Dietary Guidelines
for Americans recommendations. The Department will use the updated
scientific information it receives from the IOM to inform its next
course of action with respect to the WIC food package.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Pryor. So, but anyway, the subcommittee will meet
again at 10 a.m. on Thursday, April 3. And we will have the
Food and Drug Administration.
So again, I want to thank you for being here today. It's
been a very useful and productive hearing.
And with that, we will adjourn.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., Wednesday, March 26, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
April 3.]
MATERIAL SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE HEARING
[Clerk's Note.--The following testimony was received
subsequent to the hearing for inclusion in the record.]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Phyllis K. Fong, Inspector General, Office
of Inspector General, Department of Agriculture
Thank you, Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Blunt, and members of the
subcommittee, for the opportunity to submit a statement concerning the
Office of Inspector General's (OIG) recent and planned audit and
investigative work, as well as OIG's fiscal year 2015 budget request.
Despite the past year being a period of restricted resources, OIG
continues to achieve substantial and far-reaching results that serve
American taxpayers' interest in more effective government. In fiscal
year 2013, our audit and investigative work obtained potential monetary
results totaling over $1.2 billion. We issued 54 audit reports intended
to strengthen Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs and operations,
which produced about $1.1 billion in potential results. OIG
investigations led to 551 convictions with potential results totaling
almost $122.7 million.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As established by Congress in the Inspector General Act of
1978, audit monetary impacts derive from funds put to better use and
questioned/unsupported costs. Investigation monetary impacts come from
recoveries, court-ordered fines, restitutions, administrative
penalties, as well as other judgments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These monetary results far surpass our annual budget. From fiscal
year 2006 to fiscal year 2013, the potential dollar impact of OIG
audits and investigations has totaled $8.5 billion, while our
appropriations have been just $670 million. For every $1 invested, we
have realized potential cost savings and recoveries of about $12.62.
This figure does not capture the significant, but less easily
quantified, results of our efforts to improve public safety or
implement program improvements.
After summarizing our most significant recent audit and
investigative activities under our major strategic goals, I will
conclude with a description of what OIG has done over the past several
years to live within its budget constraints.
Before I do so, however, I would like to address one of the broader
concerns facing USDA. In our work, we often find that the Department
and its agencies need to focus more on how they monitor their programs
and ensure that participants are complying with requirements. As we
have identified in our 2013 Management Challenges, many USDA agencies
place their primary focus on administering programs and providing
benefits--often at the cost of designing sufficient controls to ensure
that program funds serve their intended purposes. This problem cuts
across USDA and has emerged in agencies in all departmental mission
areas.
While individual audits and investigations may bring to the fore
problems specific to particular agencies and programs, USDA needs to
prioritize compliance and monitoring as vital elements of proper
program management. In this vein, OIG is evaluating the Farm Service
Agency's compliance activities; a related project involves reviewing
the Risk Management Agency's (RMA) national performance reviews and
determining how useful they are in ensuring program compliance.
goal 1--safety and security
Strengthen USDA's Ability To Implement Safety and Security Measures To
Protect the Public Health as Well as Agricultural and
Departmental Resources
To help USDA and the American people meet critical challenges in
safety, security, and public health, OIG provides independent audits
and investigations. Our work addresses such issues as the ongoing
challenges of agricultural inspection activities, the safety of the
food supply, and homeland security.
Investigation Leads to Judgment Against California Meat
Packing Plant
In June 2012, two defendants entered into a settlement agreement to
pay the United States over $304,000 and pay the Humane Society of the
United States (HSUS) over $19,000. In October 2013, six defendants,
including individuals and companies, entered into a settlement
agreement to pay the United States approximately $2.7 million and pay
HSUS approximately $112,000. In addition, one of the companies entered
into a consent judgment in favor of the United States Government in the
amount of $155 million. The settlements resulted from a qui tam civil
complaint filed by HSUS in February 2008 against the company and its
entities; the complaint prompted an investigation by OIG and the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Central District of California into
allegations that a California company mistreated cattle destined for
slaughter and adulterated meat, including some products distributed to
the National School Lunch Program.
The Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) Needs To Ensure
That Swine Slaughter Plants Follow the Federal Meat
Inspection Act
FSIS inspects over 600 plants that slaughter swine, and our audit
of plants subject to FSIS' enforcement found that the agency's actions
do not deter swine slaughter plants from becoming repeat violators of
the Federal Meat Inspection Act. As a result, plants have repeatedly
violated the same regulations with little or no consequence. We found
that, in 8 of the 30 plants we visited, inspectors did not always
examine the internal organs of carcasses in accordance with FSIS
inspection requirements, or take enforcement actions against plants
that violated food safety regulations. As a result, there is reduced
assurance that FSIS inspectors effectively identified pork that should
not enter the food supply. Agency officials concurred with our
recommendations.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) Needs To Ensure
That Organic Dairy Cattle Have Appropriate Access
To Pasture
OIG also conducted an audit of how AMS implemented the ``access to
pasture'' rule as part of its National Organic Program (NOP). While the
agency has generally implemented this rule successfully, we noted that
NOP officials had not clearly defined how producers should demarcate
herds of organic milk-producing cattle, which meant that some
certifying agents treated organic dairy producers differently, allowing
some to add cattle to organic dairy herds, when other agents would not.
Because the regulations are not clear in defining herds of organic
cattle, consumers may not always be receiving the high-quality organic
product they expect. We also noted that NOP needs to include organic
feed brokers within the NOP certification process to ensure that
organic feed is not commingled or contaminated. Finally, we found that
smaller operations were often unaware of recordkeeping requirements of
the access to pasture rule regarding livestock confinement, grazing, or
the cattle's dry matter intake. AMS concurred with our recommendations.
Among other audits in process, OIG is evaluating how FSIS has
implemented the Public Health Information System (PHIS) for Domestic
Inspection, and whether PHIS adequately addresses the agency's key
mission elements.
goal 2--integrity of benefits
Reduce Program Vulnerabilities and Strengthen Program Integrity
One of OIG's most important goals is helping USDA safeguard its
programs to ensure that benefits are reaching those they are intended
to reach. Given the importance of the Food and Nutrition Service's
(FNS) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)--its $86 billion
in fiscal year 2013 represents 56 percent of USDA's budget--OIG
continues to direct a large percentage of its resources to combatting
the trafficking of SNAP benefits. In 2013, OIG's combined audit and
investigative work was selected for a Council of the Inspectors General
on Integrity and Efficiency award for excellence. The award cited audit
findings and criminal prosecutions resulting in more than $84 million
in questioned costs, funds to be put to better use, restitutions,
seizures, and other means, as well as FNS' agreement to 58 of OIG's
recommended program improvements.
As a recent example of our investigative SNAP work, an employee of
a Philadelphia supermarket who trafficked in SNAP benefits was
sentenced to prison time, and was ordered to pay approximately $2.3
million in restitution. In California, a husband and wife who owned six
stores that engaged in SNAP trafficking were sentenced to 40 months and
18 months in prison, respectively. They were also ordered to share in
paying $6.5 million in restitution to FNS.
Working jointly with FNS, OIG has also developed a new approach,
called the SNAP Initiative, which is a tool for further identifying and
addressing fraud in SNAP on a multi-agency level. The initiative
combines the resources, ingenuity, and prosecutorial efforts of local,
State, and Federal law enforcement partners with the common goal of
preventing and prosecuting SNAP fraud. This multi-step approach helps
identify SNAP fraud offenders on both the retailer and recipient side
of trafficking. A vital aspect of the initiative is prevention, to be
achieved through community outreach and media efforts educating
citizens and retail owners on Federal regulations concerning SNAP
benefits. OIG is in the process of rolling out this promising
initiative with FNS in 2014.
FNS Needs To More Closely Screen SNAP Retailers
Likewise, OIG audits have shown how SNAP may be improved to better
serve its intended purpose. Recently, OIG reviewed how FNS authorizes
retailers to participate in SNAP to determine if disqualified retailers
were allowed to continue participating in the program. We found that
FNS does not have clear procedures and guidance to carry out key
oversight and enforcement activities to address SNAP retailer fraud, or
adequate authority to prevent multiple instances of fraud--either by a
particular owner or within a particular location. As a result, FNS does
not consistently penalize retailers who illegally exchange SNAP
benefits. From a sample of 316 locations, we found that FNS did not
properly determine potentially $6.7 million in penalties, and
authorized 51 ineligible store owners, who redeemed over $5.3 million
in benefits since 2006. In addition, we identified 586 owners allowed
to continue participating in SNAP at other locations after being
permanently disqualified, and 90 retail locations that had two or more
firms permanently disqualified. FNS and OIG agreed on 12 of 20
recommendations; however, further action from the agency is needed
before management decision can be reached for the other 8
recommendations.
OIG also has several upcoming projects that will address food
benefits. We are currently reviewing the National School Lunch/
Breakfast Program to evaluate the methods FNS is using to lower the
improper payment error rates for both programs. In a separate project,
we are determining whether FNS and the State agencies responsible for
administering SNAP have adequate controls in place to ensure that SNAP
payment error rates are accurately determined and reported, appropriate
actions are taken to reduce the error rates, and errors are timely
corrected when detected. Finally, in a third review, we are evaluating
the factors causing high average food costs reported for States
participating in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children.
RMA Needs To Ensure That Its Prevented Planting Provisions
Do Not Discourage Farmers From Planting Crops
With approximately $4.6 billion in claims paid to producers who
were prevented from planting from 2008 to 2011, RMA's prevented
planting provisions offer another opportunity for USDA to achieve
improved efficiency. OIG determined that RMA needs to improve the
prevented planting provisions to be more cost effective; to encourage
producers to plant a crop, where possible; and to make eligibility
criteria more objective and clear. Specifically, we found that, out of
concern for covering a producer's pre-planting costs in all cases, RMA
set current prevented planting coverage levels above the percentages of
guarantees that farmers needed to cover average pre-planting costs. As
a result, by establishing coverage levels that provided over $480
million in potentially excessive payments, we believe that RMA
inadvertently provided incentives to actively encourage prevented
planting claims. Also, we found that loss adjusters did not fully
document and support eligibility for over $43 million in prevented
planting payments. RMA needs to improve its guidance to better hold
approved insurance providers accountable, and prevent acres that are
regularly too wet for crop production from receiving prevented planting
coverage. The agency generally agreed with our recommendations.
Also in the area of farm-related programs, in December 2013, OIG
concluded an investigation into a multi-year scheme to circumvent farm
program payment limitations. As a result, three producers, collectively
with several of their corporations and limited partnerships, signed a
settlement agreement in which they repaid $5.4 million to the
Government. Our investigation revealed that the three men (the
principal owner of an Illinois farm, his son, and son-in-law) created
limited partnerships with other individuals who did not have the
financial means or ability to operate farming operations that would
qualify for the program. During crop years 2001-2008, the three men
participated in at least 17 limited partnerships for which they
maintained full control and signature authority as general partners,
even though, on paper, they held only a 2-percent or 4-percent share of
each. The 17 limited partnerships received farm program payments of
approximately $6.7 million.
goal 3--management improvement initiatives
Support USDA in Implementing Its Management Improvement Initiatives
OIG works to aid the Department in improving the processes and
systems it needs to function effectively. Notably, we have recently
issued several reports intended to improve how USDA settles civil
rights complaints and promotes foreign trade.
Efforts To Monitor Settlement of Civil Right Complaints
USDA continues its work concerning complaints filed by different
civil rights groups. In response to requirements of the Claims
Resolution Act of 2010,\2\ OIG performed an audit of the In re Black
Farmers Discrimination Litigation (known as BFDL) claims process. Our
statistical sample of 100 randomly selected claims found instances
where the arbiter had reached differing conclusions for claims that
were essentially identical, allowed multiple claims for the same
farmer, and approved ineligible claims. The arbiter and the claims
administrator agreed with our concerns and took action to correct these
issues and maintain the integrity of the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Public Law 111-291, 124 Stat. 3064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG is currently performing a review, at the Secretary's request,
intended to determine if the claims review process for women and
Hispanic farmers is adequate and functioning. OIG is also performing
additional audit work on the adjudicated BFDL claims to determine if
awards were granted to eligible claimants.
The Office of Advocacy and Outreach (OAO) Needs To Improve
Its Process for Selecting Outreach Candidates
OAO initially selected applicants to receive fiscal year 2012
grants through the Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged
Farmers and Ranchers Program, even though these applicants may not have
been the most meritorious and deserving candidates. OAO officials
disregarded regulatory requirements and guidelines cited in the Funding
Opportunity Announcement in making those selections. Also, they had no
documentation to support their decisions and could not explain why some
applicants that appeared more deserving were not selected to receive
grant funds. OAO agreed with our recommendation to strengthen the
selection process and re-selected applicants in a more impartial and
transparent manner.
The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) Should Improve Its
Strategic Plan for Increasing Trade
A recent audit determined whether USDA and FAS have developed and
implemented measurable strategies that are effectively promoting trade.
We found that, although FAS recently updated its strategic plan to
include measurable goals and objectives, these goals and objectives
(which measure the dollar value of exports) do not present the whole
picture of how FAS' actions are affecting the global market for
American agricultural goods. FAS' measures are not outcome-based and do
not show how the United States is performing in a given market compared
to its competitors. OIG acknowledges that developing outcome-based
performance measures for FAS' trade efforts is difficult, but we
maintain that a change in U.S. market share is an outcome-based measure
that would be of great use to policymakers. FAS generally agreed with
our recommendations.
FAS Needs To Improve Controls Over Agricultural Aid to
Afghanistan
After the U.S. Agency for International Development transferred
$86.3 million to USDA for capacity-building activities in Afghanistan
in 2010, OIG was required to monitor how these funds were used. A
recent review found that senior managers at FAS were aware of general
control weaknesses before first receiving the funding; nevertheless,
FAS had not implemented performance monitoring plans for all projects
until over 2 years after the first project began. Without adequate
management controls in place, FAS cannot effectively monitor these
projects and faces difficulty in providing adequate assurance that the
funds are effectively accomplishing program goals. FAS agreed with all
recommendations.
USDA Continues Its Efforts To Improve the Reporting of
Improper Payments and High Dollar Overpayments
OIG continues to aid the Department in its efforts to reduce
improper payments as part of the Improper Payments Elimination and
Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA).\3\ In our annual report on this topic, we
found that USDA did not fully comply with IPERA for a second
consecutive year. Although USDA made progress in improving its
processes to substantially comply with IPERA, the Department was not
compliant with several IPERA requirements. By taking more effective
measures to avoid these noncompliances, USDA could have avoided
approximately $74 million in improper payments by meeting reduction
targets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Public Law 111-204, 124 Stat. 2224.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA has improved in its efforts to report high dollar
overpayments, according to our annual report. OIG found that USDA
reported more comprehensive information about high dollar overpayments
than it did in previous years. Specifically, due to improved reporting
oversight and processes, USDA reported 239 overpayments, totaling
approximately $20.3 million in fiscal year 2012. This represents an
increase of 67 percent over the number of overpayments reported the
previous year. However, we determined that the quarterly reports
included errors and were published up to 102 days after the due date.
Without accurate and timely reporting, the effects of USDA's actions or
strategies to eliminate the errors causing high dollar overpayments are
not fully known. USDA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer agreed
with our recommendation.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Must
Improve How It Releases Sensitive Information
OIG has also recently audited how NASS controls access to sensitive
market data and whether information is being released according to
established criteria. We found that NASS did not adequately enforce
critical procedures and physical security measures meant to protect the
security of NASS information. Notably, OIG was able to bring a cell
phone into lockup and witnessed a reporter using an iPad during lockup,
although these items are banned from NASS' facility. As a result,
sensitive information could be compromised or leaked before its
official release, which could adversely affect equitable trading in
commodity markets. We concurred with the actions NASS has taken to
address 14 of the 17 recommendations made in the report.
OIG conducts investigations of USDA employees alleged to have
engaged in criminal activity. In November 2012, an official with Rural
Development pled guilty to committing wire fraud by depositing $6.2
million in checks, issued by 10 water authorities and one electric
authority, into a bank account for which he had the sole signatory
authority. A joint investigation with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation disclosed that the employee then transferred those funds
to his personal accounts. The employee separated from Federal
employment in January 2013. In March 2013, the employee was sentenced
in U.S. District Court, Middle District of Alabama, to 60 months in
prison. In June 2013, the man was ordered to pay $3.9 million in
restitution to seven water authorities and one electric authority.
In other upcoming work that may be of interest, OIG is performing,
at Congressional request, a review to determine the adequacy of USDA's
management controls over the Department's Economy Act transfers and the
collection and use of funds under Department-wide reimbursable
agreements, commonly referred to as ``greenbook'' charges.
Additionally, OIG is reviewing FAS' controls over private voluntary
organizations, as well as developing a ``lessons learned'' report
concerning our Recovery Act oversight.
oig budget and cost-saving initiatives
In response to the budgetary constraints throughout the Federal
Government, OIG has streamlined its operations to create a leaner, more
effective agency. In fiscal year 2012, we conducted a functional
analysis to ensure that OIG, as an agency, is appropriately positioned
to continue to operate in the most efficient and effective manner.
Based on this analysis and the limited fiscal year 2013 budget, we took
the following steps:
--reduced staffing through attrition;
--reduced leased office space and office structures;
--increased use of webinars, video, and teleconferencing to reduce
travel costs;
--allowed employees to fill GS-14 and GS-15 positions without moving,
which has reduced relocation costs; and
--shifted Investigations and Audit employees away from headquarters
and to the field to carry out OIG's audit and investigative
operations more effectively.
These steps enabled OIG to continue performing its oversight role
despite the fact that OIG is presently functioning at its lowest level
of staffing in its history.
The increase in OIG's fiscal year 2014 budget allows us to fill
some critical vacancies that will enhance our ability to deliver high-
quality products. We appreciate the Committee's support in providing
these much needed resources.
For fiscal year 2015, the President's budget request proposes a
total increase of $7.3 million and 12 staff years. Much of this
increase (about $5.2 million) is intended to pay for decentralizing
General Services Administration rental payments and Department of
Homeland Security payments. In addition, we have requested funding for
staffing an Audit Center of Excellence, an initiative that will review
agency program vulnerabilities and enhance the Department's oversight
of improper payments. Audit's Center of Excellence would have a data
analysis component which would isolate data anomalies within USDA's
highrisk program payments and allow OIG to better validate how agencies
calculate their improper payment error rate. We anticipate that this
initiative will help the Department administer its programs more
effectively and implement corrective actions necessary to reduce
improper payments.
This concludes my statement. My senior management team and I would
be pleased to address any questions that you and the subcommittee's
staff may have, at your convenience.
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m. in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Pryor (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Pryor, Merkley, Blunt, Cochran, and
Collins.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
STATEMENT OF HON. DR. MARGARET HAMBURG, COMMISSIONER
ACCOMPANIED BY:
WILLIAM TOOTLE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET
NORRIS W. COCHRAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF BUDGET
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARK L. PRYOR
Senator Pryor. I`ll go ahead and call our hearing to order
here. And let me just say welcome everyone to the subcommittee
on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies. And today, we are talking
about the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
So I'd like to thank everyone for being here today,
especially Commissioner Hamburg who has done great work over
there, as well as Mr. Tootle and Mr. Cochran. Thank you for
your time and your preparation. And I know that you have to
deal with a set of very complex issues not just in what you do
normally, but also in the budget environment this year, one
that we're all living in right now. And you're working hard to
honor the responsibilities of the FDA and we appreciate your
efforts on that.
BUDGET
I'm not going to take up a lot of time with an opening
statement, but I would like to say that this budget is quite a
change from the budgets we've seen from FDA over the past few
years. For an agency that regulates products, representing more
than 20 cents of every $1 that Americans spend, with a budget
of over $2.5 billion, the increase you're requesting is
minimal; less than 1 percent. And on the one hand, I think
people appreciate that, but on the other hand, we recognize the
challenges that that presents, as well.
And I know that you will talk about a larger request, but
it is important to note that that's beyond the jurisdiction of
our subcommittee because it's based on user fees. And we'll
focus mostly on what the subcommittee has control over. But,
certainly, if you want to talk about user fees, you're
certainly welcome to do that.
FOOD SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT
It's often pointed out that FDA's responsibilities are
incredibly vast; certainly they continue to grow and to evolve.
Currently, you're in the middle of the implementation of the
Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) which, I'm sure, we'll
hear more about this morning. You're also continuing to respond
to issues about compounded drugs and implementing the Drug
Quality and Security Act (DQSA) which was signed into law last
November.
So here, again, you have your plate full. We appreciate the
challenges you face. Look forward to hearing about your budget.
And also, one thing I think that we need to recognize is
the world continues to become smaller. And you really are in
charge of regulating a global marketplace; it's not just the
U.S. market but really the, because the United States is such
an important part of the global economy, in your areas of
jurisdiction, you really are, in some ways, managing or
overseeing a global marketplace. And that brings its own set of
responsibilities and challenges.
New medical treatments are coming onboard. We're going
from, kind of, a one-size-fits-all in the world of medicine to
finding drugs and treatments and cures that are very, very
personalized. And, even though this is exciting, once again, it
creates a whole new set of challenges for you to have the right
science and the right methodology and the right approach to get
the best results we can possibly get while always being safe,
of course.
And so that's obviously a big picture overview. Your agency
has a lot of supporters not just around the country and around
the world, but also in the Senate. But we also know that
there's a lot of expectations on this agency because the FDA
has, really, a long track record of getting it right and we
appreciate that.
NATIONAL CENTER FOR TOXICOLOGICAL RESEARCH
So we can talk about the funding for the National Center
for Toxicological Research (NCTR). In Arkansas, I know that
there's a cut there. We'll talk about that. They continue to do
groundbreaking research in nanotechnology and a number of other
places. So, we'll talk about that during the question period.
And you also have a very small increase in your budget
proposed for implementing the FSMA and with a much larger sum
proposed in new user fees. And, again, we'll talk about that,
too.
So, with all that said, what I'd like to do is turn it over
to my ranking member, a great leader on these issues, Senator
Blunt.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROY BLUNT
Senator Blunt. Well, thank you, Chairman Pryor. And thank
you for your extraordinary leadership of this committee and
your partnership in the issues we deal with.
Dr. Hamburg, we're pleased you're here. Mr. Cochran and Mr.
Tootle, thank you for everything you do. I have a statement for
the record, but let me mention a couple of things in that
statement.
First of all, the impact of the agency is significant.
Twenty cents out of every spending $1 goes to things that FDA
one way or another is involved in. Americans expect that the
food they eat to be safe and the drugs they take to be safe and
effective. Your private sector partners also expect you to be
that; a partner in trying to make those things work and, to
those conclusions, in the best way for everybody involved, and,
ultimately, the best way for the consumer. And, of course, part
of that means getting products to the consumer as quickly as we
can but no more quickly than we can.
It's like somebody once said, ``Everything should be as
simple as possible but no simpler.'' And, that's sort of what
we want to see happen at the FDA. We want this done as quickly
as we can get it done, but obviously it's important that it be
done in the right way.
In the last 3 years, the FDA has been given significant new
responsibilities: The Food Safety Modernization Act; the, what
sounded easy but turned out not to be so easy, menu labeling
legislation; the drug compounding legislation that just gave
you new responsibilities in the last year. And in all of those,
and everything else you do, I think we need to be careful.
And our job is to be insistent that we don't get into a
one-size-fits-all mentality because one size almost never fits
anybody. And small businesses really suffer from procedures
that are designed for businesses that are much bigger than the
job that they're trying to do.
FOOD SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT
Under the Food Safety Modernization Act, the FDA is tasked
with implementing the most sweeping changes in food safety in
over 70 years. There's a lot of anxiety in the agricultural
community about the implementation of this act. And, back to
the one-size-fits-all concept of how this act would work, and
something that Senator Shaheen and I in a letter signed by
others brought to your attention and you've responded to in the
last few weeks. And we see that there's a handful of setbacks
already in addressing this law as people say, ``Well, this
really doesn't work for us. And here's why we want you to
understand better that this doesn't work in all of the
environments that now the Food Safety Modernization Act would
take today's FDA.''
But we're glad you're here. I look forward to the chance to
ask questions about this budget and about the ongoing work of
the agency.
And, Mr. Chairman, again thank you for your leadership and
for calling this hearing today.
Senator Pryor. Well, thank you.
And we really only have one witness today, although, she
has, can I say, two wingmen up there with her. Is that fair to
say? The wingmen are Bill Tootle, who is the Director of Office
and Budget at the FDA; and also we have Norris Cochran, he is
at Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of
Budget; and of course, the star of the show today is going to
be Dr. Margaret H. Hamburg.
Welcome. And I don't think we're necessarily going to put a
timer on yours. We'd love for you to--you understand you can
submit your full statement for the record. If you want to
summarize it, that's up to you.
And, what we're going to try to do here is probably minute
rounds, is probably what we're going to do here.
So, go ahead, Dr. Hamburg. Thank you for being here.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. DR. MARGARET HAMBURG
Dr. Hamburg. Great.
Thank you so much. And I, of course, would like to submit
my full statement for the record.
But, Chairman Pryor and members of the subcommittee, I do
appreciate the opportunity to come before you today and to
discuss our fiscal year 2015 budget. I also want to thank you
for the subcommittee's past investments in FDA. Really, your
unflagging support for FDA's work to promote and protect public
health, even in these challenging budgetary times, is deeply
appreciated. And the recent work you've done to help us around
some of the sequester issues also has been very meaningful.
As you know, FDA's mission is far-reaching. We're tasked
with ensuring the safety, effectiveness, and quality of human
and animal drugs, biologics, medical devices, and other medical
products; as well as the safety of our blood supply, safety and
quality of some 80 percent of our Nation's food supply, and,
most recently, the responsibility to regulate the
manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products.
Today, FDA must respond to ever more complex challenges. We
must stay at pace or ahead of the rapid advances in science and
technology that are driving product developments and
innovation. And globalization is dramatically increasing the
volume of imported goods, as well as the complexity of their
supply chains.
I'm happy to report that last year FDA moved forward on
many fronts to address these and other significant challenges.
We took major steps towards implementing the Food Safety
Modernization Act, or FSMA, which will enable FDA to build a
modern prevention-focused food safety system, protecting
Americans against foodborne illness from both domestic and
foreign sources. We approved novel medical products in cutting-
edge areas of science to address critical medical needs. We've
made progress in reducing drug shortages. And working with
members of Congress and industry, we reached agreement on an
approach to pharmacy compounding and set a timeline for a
National Track and Trace System for prescription drugs that,
when fully implemented, will further bolster the safety of the
drug supply chain.
BUDGET
Looking ahead to next year, FDA is requesting a budget of
$4.74 billion for fiscal year 2015. This represents a modest
increase of 8 percent overall, or $358 million, to help fund
our highest priorities.
In 2015, as noted, proposed and current user fees account
for a significant proportion of our total budget request, 46
percent, with budget authority dollars comprising the rest. We
recognize the larger pressures on the Federal budgets. So our
budget request focuses on our most urgent needs; the safety of
medical products including compounded drugs and the safety of
our food supply. We're also asking for a small increase for
infrastructure.
More specifically, the 2015 budget provides a program level
of $2.6 billion to continue core medical product activities
across FDA programs, which is $61 million above the fiscal year
2014 enacted level. And, importantly, this budget includes $25
million in budget authority to enhance pharmacy compounding
oversight activities.
COMPOUNDING PHARMACIES
The 2012 fungal meningitis outbreak that killed 64 people
and sickened some 750 others across 20 States in this country,
demonstrated the critical need for improved oversight of
compounding pharmacies. To better protect the American people,
FDA quickly stepped up activities within available resources,
and then Congress passed the Drug Quality and Security Act, in
November 2013, giving us new responsibilities and authorities;
though without commensurate resources.
FOOD SAFETY
FDA's 2015 budget also requests an increase of $263 million
for food safety including resources to continue implementing
FSMA. Implementation will reduce foodborne outbreaks which
continue to cause preventable illness, hospitalization, and
deaths. Implementation will also minimalize the market
disruptions and economic costs inflicted by these outbreaks and
significant contamination incidents.
This is a crucial time if we're to realize the vision and
mandate of FSMA. While we'll still be able to issue the FSMA
rules without increased funding, it will be impossible to
effectively implement these important rules and to reduce or
prevent serious and costly foodborne disease.
New resources are required in fundamental areas: Training;
the provision of guidance and technical assistance to industry
especially small growers and producers; support to build and
strengthen partnerships with States; and the creation of a
modern import safety system.
In conclusion, I want to underscore that FDA is a unique
and essential agency. What we do matters for health and quality
of life of individuals, families, and communities across our
Nation. And it matters to the health and vibrancy of our
economy, jobs, and our global economic competitiveness, as
well. Yet the FDA budget is, in fact, a remarkable bargain.
As has been noted, the products we regulate account for
more than 20 cents of every consumer dollar spent on products
in the United States. Yet, individual Americans pay a scant 2
cents a day to support our work; a small price to pay for life-
saving medicines approved as fast, or faster, than anywhere in
the world; a food supply that is among the safest in the world;
and confidence in a vast array of important products that
Americans rely on each and every day.
So I thank you for your past support and I look forward to
our ability to discuss these important issues this morning.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg
Good morning Chairman Pryor and Members of the Subcommittee, I am
Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss FDA's fiscal year 2015 budget request. I would like to thank
the subcommittee for its past investments in FDA, which have helped us
meet the demands of our broad and increasingly complex mission. For
fiscal year 2015 FDA is requesting $4.74 billion, which represents a
modest increase to address our highest priorities.
fda plays a vital role in an increasingly complex environment
FDA is a science-based, regulatory Agency with a public health
mission. Our Agency is charged with an enormous and significant task:
to promote and protect the health of the American people, and
increasingly, people all over the world. This includes efforts to
ensure the safety, effectiveness, and quality of human and animal
drugs, biologics, medical devices, and other medical products, as well
as the safety and wholesomeness of four-fifths of our Nation's food
supply. It also includes working to foster the scientific innovation
that will lead to tomorrow's products, and more recently, regulating
the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products
while seeking to reduce the use of tobacco products by minors.
The medical and food products we regulate have the potential to
sustain life, reduce suffering, treat previously untreatable diseases,
and extend lives. They are products that range from those used daily,
such as fruits and vegetables or medicines to treat other chronic
conditions, to products that may be needed once in a lifetime, such as
an automated external defibrillator, to save someone's life. FDA has a
duty to make safe and effective products available as quickly as
possible, while at the same time protecting citizens from products that
may cause harm. It is this dual responsibility to public health that
highlights the critical nature of the Agency. The ability to prevent
the outbreak of a foodborne illness is very different but just as
important as fast approval of a life-changing medical product. The
health of the citizens of the United States depends on both.
Many of the products we regulate are more complex than ever. Gone
are the days when treating patients was based on signs and symptoms
alone. Rapid developments in science and technology are making it
possible for physicians to truly personalize diagnosis and treatment.
For example, just last May, FDA approved two drugs for melanoma along
with companion diagnostic tests that use the genetic characteristics of
the patient's tumor to help determine whether a patient will respond.
The ability to evaluate remarkable products like these requires FDA to
stay ahead of the curve.
Scientific innovation is also driving remarkable advances in
medical device development. For example, we are working hard to support
the development of an artificial pancreas which would represent a huge
advance in the management of diabetes. Products such as these offer
great promise in reducing the burden of disease by tailoring
interventions more effectively.
In addition to becoming more complex, the environment in which FDA
protects and promotes the health and well-being of the American people
is becoming increasingly global. Over the last 10 years, the number of
imported shipments of FDA-regulated products has skyrocketed--in 2013,
approximately 29 million shipments of imported food and medical
products entered the United States. Imports account for 50 percent of
fresh fruits and 20 percent of fresh vegetables, 80 percent of seafood,
and 40 percent of the drugs on our shelves. Most of this increase in
imports is coming from countries with limited regulatory oversight.
A strong FDA is critical not only to the domestic and global public
health, but also to the U.S. economy, the balance of trade, and
homeland security. The implementation of FDA's mission promotes
innovation in the industries it regulates and affects costs in the
broader economic and healthcare systems. Innovations not only create
jobs, they position the domestic industries to compete in the global
marketplace. Our history shows that when there is public trust in FDA's
oversight, our industries flourish. Conversely, when food and medical
products cause serious harm, the result is often severe economic damage
across the industry involved--to offenders and non- offenders alike.
we moved forward on many fronts this year
This past year's accomplishments on behalf of public health have
been as substantial as any in FDA's recent history. There were too many
significant actions to list here; below are just a few of the
highlights of fiscal year 2013.
Food Safety.--FDA published seven major proposed rules that form
FSMA's central framework for moving to a comprehensive 21st Century
food safety system. These science-based standards are designed to keep
produce safe, implement modern preventive controls in human and animal
food/feed facilities, modernize oversight of imported foods, guard
against intentional contamination, and help ensure the safe transport
of food and feed. In August, FDA issued a final rule defining ``gluten-
free'' for food labeling, to help the estimated 3 million Americans who
have celiac disease make food choices with confidence to better manage
their health. In November, we took further steps to reduce the amount
of artificial trans fat in processed foods.
Nutrition.--FDA recently proposed updating the Nutrition Facts
label on food packages to reflect new public health and scientific
evidence about nutrition, obesity, and chronic disease. Serving size
requirements would be updated to reflect the amounts of food people are
actually eating and drinking, and the format of the label would be
refreshed, with key parts of the label such as calories, serving sizes,
and percent daily value displayed more prominently.
Breakthrough Therapies.--In 2012, FDASIA created a powerful new
tool to facilitate the development and review of ``breakthrough
therapies.'' In 2013, FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
(CDER) received 121 requests for breakthrough therapy designation, and
has already granted the designation to 36 potentially innovative new
drugs that target both rare (epidermolysis bullosa, and Waldenstrom's
macroglobuilnemia) and common (cystic fibrosis, breast cancer, and
hepatitis C) conditions.
Drug Shortages.--In 2013, FDA helped to prevent 170 drug shortages.
In October, the Agency issued a ``Strategic Plan for Preventing and
Mitigating Drug Shortages,'' outlining the Agency's strategy for
improving its response to early notifications of a potential shortage,
as well as identifying long-term initiatives that the Agency is
considering or that stakeholders could take to address the underlying
causes of shortages, such as opportunities for drug manufacturers to
promote and sustain quality manufacturing.
FDA also issued a proposed rule that, if finalized, will expand the
early notification requirements.
Unique Device Identification.--On September 20, 2013, FDA announced
the final rule requiring that most medical devices distributed in the
United States carry a unique device identifier (UDI). The system will
be phased in over several years, focusing first on the highest risk
medical devices. Once fully implemented, the UDI system will enhance
the ability to quickly identify devices when recalled, improve the
accuracy of adverse event reports, and help prevent counterfeiting and
diversion. It will also offer a clear way of documenting device use in
electronic health records and clinical information systems.
Drug Quality and Security Act.--On November 27, 2013, the Drug
Quality and Security Act (DQSA) was enacted. Within days of enactment,
issued three draft guidances for industry related to how the Agency
intended to implement the new requirements.
As of March 6, 2014, 32 firms had registered as outsourcing
facilities--and inspections have begun, focusing first on facilities
that have not had a recent FDA inspection. A list of the facilities and
information about what it means to register as an outsourcing facility
is publicly available on FDA's website and is updated weekly.
New Molecular Entities.--Last year marked another strong year for
FDA approvals of novel new drugs (NMEs). In 2013, FDA approved 27
NMEs--about the same as the 26 average annual approvals since the
beginning of this decade. Some of these medications offer new hope to
patients who previously had few or no treatment options. Examples of
NMEs approved this year include a ``game-changing'' virtual cure for
Hepatitis C, a drug that attacks breast cancer cells like a ``smart
bomb'' reducing damage to normal tissues, and four new drugs to treat
diabetes. Of the NMEs approved in 2013, one-third were identified by
FDA as ``first-in-class,'' and one-third were approved to treat rare or
``orphan'' diseases. Almost three-quarters (74 percent) of the NMEs
approved by FDA in 2013 were approved first in the United States before
any other country.
Public Health Preparedness.--We continued our efforts in 2013 to
work with U.S. Government partners and product developers to facilitate
the development and availability of medical countermeasures for
responding to potential public health emergencies. This has resulted in
the recent approval of several medical countermeasures to help protect
the Nation from chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats,
including an inhalational anthrax therapeutic, a botulism antitoxin, a
next-generation portable ventilator, and several influenza diagnostic
tests. For emerging infectious disease threats, such as the avian
influenza A (H7N9) virus and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome
coronavirus (MERS-CoV), FDA issued Emergency Use Authorizations for
diagnostic tests using new authorities created under the Pandemic and
All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013. In addition, FDA
recently approved several seasonal influenza vaccines--including a
vaccine manufactured using modern cell culture techniques and a vaccine
made through recombinant DNA technology.
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.--In 2013 we made
significant progress in implementing the Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act. We signed contracts with state and local
authorities to enforce the ban on the sale of regulated tobacco
products to children and teens. By January 31, 2014, approximately
258,300 inspections were conducted resulting in about 13,400 Warning
Letters being issued, and over 1,200 Civil Monetary Penalties were
imposed. We launched a significant research initiative, and issued the
first-ever determinations on whether certain new tobacco products were
or were not ``substantially equivalent'' to products already on the
market. Just last month we launched a national public education
campaign aimed at reducing the number of young people who use tobacco
products.
In addition we took important steps towards fighting the
development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, decreased the backlog in
medical device applications, and exceeded our new ADUFA and AGDUFA
performance goals. Our emphasis on product quality is accelerating,
with the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH)'s Voluntary
Compliance Improvement Program pilot, and CDER's new Office of
Pharmaceutical Quality.
FDA accomplished all this and more while costing Americans only
about $8 per person a year. FDA is a bargain--the products regulated by
FDA account for more than 20 percent of every consumer dollar spent on
products in the U.S., but individual Americans only pay about 2 cents a
day to ensure that those products are safe and effective. This is a
small price to pay for life-saving medicines approved as fast or faster
than anywhere in the world, confidence in medical products that are
relied on daily, and a food supply that is among the safest in the
world.
fda's fiscal year 2015 president's budget request
The fiscal year 2015 President's budget request for FDA is $4.74
billion for the total Program Level, which is $358 million above the
fiscal year 2014 enacted level. Of the total funding, $2.58 billion is
budget authority and $2.16 billion is user fees. The fiscal year 2015
increase consists of $23 million in budget authority and $335 million
in user fees. The growth in user fee funding stems from several new
programs, along with increased collection authority for many of FDA's
existing programs.
We are mindful of the larger pressures on the Federal budget, and
have focused our request on the most urgent needs for fiscal year 2015.
Serious product safety and quality lapses in recent years have caused
serious public health situations, most notably those involving
foodborne illness and the compounding of unsafe drugs, so FDA is
seeking increases in order to strengthen oversight of the pharmacy
compounding industry and to support food safety and implementation of
FSMA.
In addition, FDA must continue to advance medical countermeasures
and maintain the integrity of operations and infrastructure, and is
asking for small increases to support these activities as well.
medical product safety
The fiscal year 2015 budget provides a program level of 2.6
billion, which is $61 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level,
to continue core medical product safety activities across FDA programs.
Within this amount, FDA will invest $25 million in budget authority to
enhance pharmacy compounding oversight activities in fiscal year 2015,
which will significantly benefit public health and safety. It also
includes $4.6 million for proposed International Courier user fees.
In 2012, a fungal meningitis outbreak associated with a compounded
sterile drug resulted in 64 deaths and over 750 cases of infections
across 20 States. Since September 26, 2012, 28 firms ceased sterile
operations. Since that time, FDA has learned of at least 20 compounders
that may have shipped contaminated drug products, and has received at
least 125 reports of adverse events, including serious infections,
associated with drugs produced by compounders. As of March 6, 2014, FDA
is aware of 40 recalls by compounding pharmacies, including some
recalls overseen by FDA, and others overseen by a State.
These statistics demonstrate the magnitude of the problems with
compounders' sterile operations.
FDA intends to continue risk-based, follow-up, and for-cause
inspections of compounding pharmacies to identify pharmacies with
deficient sterile compounding practices. FDA is also encouraging
purchasers of compounded products to buy from registered outsourcers, a
new category of compounder created by the DQSA and that will be subject
to enhanced FDA oversight and Federal quality standards.
food safety
The fiscal year 2015 budget provides a total program level of $1.48
billion for food safety, which is $263 million above the fiscal year
2014 enacted level. Within this amount, FDA will invest $24 million in
budget authority to further advance recent gains in food safety
modernization through implementation of FSMA. A majority of the
increase is the result of new user fees, including $60 million in Food
Facility Registration and Inspection fees, and $169 million in Food
Import fees.
With the requested increase in budget authority, FDA will be able
to develop guidance and provide technical assistance for industry,
provide technical support for FDA inspectors, and begin to implement
training for FDA and state inspectors. If the proposed user fee revenue
is authorized and appropriated, FDA will be able to undertake the wider
array of activities needed to fulfill the food safety modernization
goals of FSMA, including retraining of the Federal and state inspection
force, training and technical assistance for small and mid-size growers
and processors, and building the modern import oversight system
mandated by FSMA. The implementation of the broad preventive controls
framework mandated in FSMA will reduce instances of foodborne illness
seen recently as a result of E. coli O157 contamination of pre-packaged
salads, Salmonella and Listeria contamination of cheese products, and
Listeria contamination in cantaloupe, and minimize the market
disruptions and economic costs inflicted by illness outbreaks and
significant contamination incidents.
infrastructure
Within the funding for medical product and food safety, and medical
countermeasures, FDA requests a program level increase of $5.8 million
for infrastructure. Infrastructure includes GSA Rental Payments, Other
Rent and Rent Related costs, and White Oak Consolidation.
current law user fees
Within the funding requested is a $75.4 million increase for
current law user fees, which will allow FDA to fulfill its mission of
protecting the public health and accelerating innovation in the
industry. The user fees collected will support the review and
surveillance of human and animal drugs, medical and mammography
devices, food and feed, color additives, export certification, and
tobacco products. The request includes statutorily mandated increases
for many existing programs, which will expand the available options for
treating and curing diseases and will fund strategies to prevent and
reduce the use of tobacco products by young people and reduce the
burden of illness and death caused by tobacco products. Some of the
amount requested supports infrastructure costs associated with current
law user fee programs.
conclusion
FDA's oversight of our food and medical products supply is
indispensable to the health and well-being of every American. We carry
out our broad public health responsibilities effectively and with few
taxpayer dollars--even as those responsibilities are expanding as a
result of new legislation, technological advances, and a globalized
marketplace. Our fiscal year 2015 budget targets our spending
efficiently, on programs that are essential to providing Americans with
the safe foods and effective medical products they expect. We look
forward to answering your questions today and to working with you in
the coming year.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. And thank you for your testimony.
Let me go ahead and jump in with the first question. Again,
we'll do 7-minute rounds.
E-CIGARETTES
Dr. Hamburg, on Monday of this week, I sent you a letter
about e-cigarettes, e-liquids, or some people call them liquid
nicotine. There was a recent New York Times article that stated
that nationwide poisoning linked to e-liquids jumped to 1,351
in 2013, and that's a 300 percent increase over 2012. And it
looks like, based on the current numbers, that the 2014 number
will probably be double what 2013 was. So obviously this is an
exploding problem. And I think one of the reasons it is
exploding is because of these little bottles right here.
This is a product called ``J Juice.'' And this one is,
believe it or not, the flavor is ``Scooby snacks;'' okay? This
one over here, the flavor is ``sour apple.'' And this one over
here, the flavor is ``moon pie.'' And so, the thing that
concerns me is really the packaging and the attractiveness to
children. They're actually--you can go to the candy aisle at a
convenience store or a grocery store and you will see something
very similar to this except it's candy.
And I see the numbers and I, obviously, one of the first
things that concerns me about this is the marketing to
children, when you have a little friendly, colorful packets
like this, and then, the packaging itself, it's not childproof.
Childproofing probably helps the toddlers and the small
children; it really doesn't help teenagers.
And we can talk about some of that in just a moment, but I
do think that at least there's probably a whole range of issues
to talk about with these, legal and others, but also I do think
that probably the first priority should be to try to keep these
out of the hands of children.
And when I look at Arkansas and I look at our statistics in
our State, there've been almost 80 cases of poisoning. And, of
those, about one-fourth were kids age 5 and under. So, again,
it's not limited to them but you see this really strong
tendency to kids age 5 and under. And of the more than 1,300
exposures nationwide in 2013, about 90 percent of them were
pediatric cases.
So I know that you're concerned about this, I've talked to
you and your staff has told us some of the things you're doing.
So if you don't mind, if you could just walk through with the
subcommittee some of the things you're doing. I know you're in
a process and some things you really can't talk about it in
great detail but the subcommittee would like to hear what
you're doing with this liquid nicotine.
Dr. Hamburg. Well, we share your concern about the
potential risks of these e-cigarettes and liquid nicotine
exposure and do feel that this is an area that requires greater
attention, action, and concern.
At the present time, we do not have the authority to
regulate e-cigarettes and some of these other products you're
describing unless they make a therapeutic claim, in which case
then they can be regulated as a drug.
DEEMING RULE
But in the absence of that, we do need to pursue what we
call the ``deeming rule,'' which is something that was laid out
in the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
That really gave us authority to go beyond what was explicitly
in the law, which was the oversight of tobacco, roll-your-own,
and smokeless tobacco--cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own, and
smokeless tobacco, to other products that are increasingly in
the marketplace. And we've been working hard on that. And we
hope, some of you have heard me say this before, but we really
are making progress and hope that that proposed deeming rule
will be put forward very soon so that we can have broader
comment in the input. And that is a critical building block for
our ability to address what you were describing and other
products in the marketplace, as well.
I would also say, though, that while we have been working
hard on that, we have also been investing in an important
scientific research that will give us new information so that
we can most responsibly regulate these products. And we've been
doing that within our agency and with partners in the Federal
Government, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); as
well as providing grants to academic institutions to help us
build the knowledge base about both the behaviors associated
with these products and their health impacts, and also to
better understand some of the constituents of these products
and the public health implications and medical implications of
those, as well.
Senator Pryor. Yes. I know part of what you're striving to
do is to be very science-based and understand that. But I also
do think that when you look at the numbers, especially if you
take one issue here that, to me, would seem fairly easily to
tackle, at least in the beginning, would be just the packaging
of this.
I'm curious, like you mentioned a deeming rule, do you have
to go through that process on a deeming rule just to work on
packaging? And then, how long does that typically take? I know
you said very soon you'd allow for comment but how long does
that process typically take?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, we do need to have authority over these
products in order to regulate them and take certain actions. So
that is why the deeming rule is so important. It's foundational
to so many other things that we need to undertake.
I will be honest with you that I think it has taken too
long to move the deeming rule forward and we are pushing very
hard to get it out as a proposed rule for broader discussion
and then for finalization so that we can take these actions and
provide the regulatory oversight; always science-based, that is
crucial. But we need to be able to address these other
important products that weren't directly covered in the
original legislation.
Senator Pryor. Yes. And I'm not trying to just single out J
Juice because the truth is there are dozens of these different
companies and labels. And I think, right now, this is such a
new development, I'm not sure that we really know where all
this is being made, and what all is in here, and who would
regulate it and things like that.
It's a little bit of a Wild West out there but I am seeing
what we call ``vapor shops.'' Those are starting to spring up
in Arkansas. And I didn't know this until the other day. I was
talking to our Alcohol Beverage Control guy in the State that
does that and he was saying that this is a real challenge, is
these vapor shops.
But also online. That's a whole new thing. Again, I had
some of my staff look at this online. And literally, you say,
``Oh, yeah, I'm 18,'' or ``I'm 21.'' Click. And then you can
get just unlimited stuff. And some of the flavors, again:
``tutti fruity,'' ``fruit punch,'' ``grape,'' ``cherry,'' lots
of other choices; lots of brands.
So I'm not really trying to single out just one brand. And
I'm not even saying that this is all completely horrible, but
it's a challenge especially with young people that I think
it's, again, it's a complicated set of issues that I know
you're focused on. I'd like to continue to work with you on
that.
I've exhausted my time for the first round. So, Senator
Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We'll have more than one round, too; won't we? So we'll
have time to ask questions we want to ask today.
And again, Dr. Hamburg, thank you for being here.
PREVENTIVE CONTROL RULE
As I may have mentioned in my opening statement, Senator
Shaheen and I sent a letter in November of last year about the
Food Safety Modernization Act and certain sections in Produce
Safety and Preventive Controls for Human Food Rules. You're re-
proposing part of those rules. Why aren't you just re-proposing
all of the rules so that people can see the new changes in the
context of the rest of the rule that's out there?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, this has been a very open process where
we have tried to reach out and really get input on all of the
different rules. There are seven foundational rules for
implementation of this important new law. Congress gave us some
very rigorous deadlines for implementation and the courts have
also weighed in as well. So we are really pressed to move
forward. At the same time, we want to get it right.
And so, what we have been trying to do is to listen
carefully, including going out to farms and food producers
across the country for meetings, visits, and listening sessions
to understand where the concerns are. And there are a set of
clear, targeted concerns in the area of preventive controls for
human and animal feed as well as in the produce area. And
that's where we think that by re-proposing, we can make a real
difference.
We agree with your earlier comment about this is not an
arena where the one-size-fits-all model can work. We want to
find practical, workable, solutions that will matter to make it
feasible for industry to implement these important new rules
and the spirit of the Food Safety Modernization Act. But that
will also make a difference for improving public health in
reducing preventable foodborne outbreaks.
So I think we're moving forward on the path that makes
sense that enables us to reach our common goals but in a timely
way that will matter for both consumers and for industry.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES RULE
Senator Blunt. Well, I do think there's some significant
merit to, when you re-proposed certain rules, other rules that
were in that package may be impacted by that as well. But I
know in the Health Committee, in the last month or so, a number
of our colleagues were concerned that you might not be totally
adhering to the Administrative Procedures Rule. And you
addressed that to some length.
What I'd really like to know today is, as you re-propose
the Preventive Controls Rule, that you intend to adhere to the
Administrative Procedures Rule and ensure that any new testing
requirements would be subject to economic analysis and full
notice.
Dr. Hamburg. Well, we certainly are committed to adhering
to the Administrative Procedures Rule. And we're committed to
really listening to the various stakeholders as they raise
issues and concerns. So, I take your comments to heart. And we
will take them back to the agency to review what we're doing
and also as we shape the re-proposal.
Senator Blunt. And that will include an economic analysis?
Dr. Hamburg. Yes. I----
Senator Blunt. I think that's----
Dr. Hamburg. Probably multiple economic analyses.
ANIMAL FEED RULE
Senator Blunt. All right. You just mentioned the part of
the rule that related to what, I believe, the rule may have
referred to as ``waste.'' ``Byproducts'' would be another term
that I would have more traditionally, I think, seen used
because the waste could wind up in places it doesn't need to
wind up in if you really, truly, decide that this is just
material that is to be discarded as opposed to material that
can be re-purposed, I guess, as we re-propose these rules.
Last night, FDA announced that brewers' grains would be
addressed in the re-proposal of the animal feed rule. You and I
talked about that part of the rule the other day. And, since
then, I thought about this with some greater thought to what
we're really doing here. And, I think the issue is larger than
brewer's grains. I think there are lots of products that, from
burnt potato chips to orange peels that are re-purposed to
animal feed and other things, and under all of the restrictions
that we would want to have there, I'm a little concerned that
the only thing that FDA appears to be revisiting right now is
the brewer's grains part of the so-called waste. I think it's a
bigger issue than that. And any response you'd like to have,
I'd be glad to hear.
Dr. Hamburg. Well, I think, I mean, I'll be honest with
you, that this was an issue that was only recently brought to
my attention in terms of the agricultural practices. And, in
discussing it with the team at the FDA, there was a strong
sense that this is an area of importance that we want to
support sustainable agriculture practices. And it makes
enormous sense. We do believe that it can be addressed in a
practical, sensible way. After our conversation about
distillers' grains, I took that back and we're looking at that.
So I think we will be looking at it more broadly.
Senator Blunt. I think you really need to because the place
that these things will wind up if we don't make the most out of
products we can make the most out of, it's going to be in a
landfill somewhere; nobody benefits from that until you truly
are at the point that there's no economic or societal purpose
to be served by getting more out of what we have. World food
needs are going to increase dramatically. That means that not
only do we need to think about how we produce more food but how
we more effectively use the food and food products we have. And
I think this is a big issue and I'm glad that you're going to
go back and look at it again.
This is everything from leftover seeds that aren't used
that are then mixed into animal feed. I think one of the major,
maybe all of the companies that have orange peels and citrus
peels, pelletize those, and then they have found good and
productive purposes for those. And again, they go somewhere
that nobody benefits from more things in the landfill,
particularly if there's real value left in these products. And
I'm hopeful that you're going to look much more in-depth at
what all that really means industry-wide.
Chairman, I'm out of my time, too.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Senator Merkley.
DEEMING RULE
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for all of your testimony.
And I want to continue the conversation that the chair
began regarding the deeming regulation. We passed this act in
June 2009. And it took 4 years and 4 months for the FDA to send
it to OMB which, to me, is an egregious amount of time.
At the beginning of that period, we had products being test
marketed in Oregon and elsewhere in the country that were
dissolvable tobacco products. We had dissolvable tobacco formed
into toothpicks like this. We had it being formed into mint-
tobacco candy with caramel and mint flavorings. We had
dissolvable tobacco being formed into breath strips, as ironic
as that might seem. Here is some mint breath strips that you
might want to try made out of tobacco. And we had an explosion
in the flavors of cigars and cigarillos and so forth. Just a
little sampling here; we've got ``sweet cherry,'' ``Captain
Black.'' We've got the ``grape'' cigar; we've got the
``strawberry'' cigar. Make sure we get some ``apple'' cigars.
And the list would go on and on.
The whole point being that the tobacco industry understands
that you have to addict children because adults don't pick up
tobacco products and start using them. Essentially, it has to
happen before the age of 21.
And all of this, I am told, and have been told repeatedly
by the FDA, would be covered through the deeming regulation.
But as you point out yourself, you have to get the deeming
regulation done to get that authority. And all we're talking
about now is the draft regulation. It's only the draft
regulation that's been sent to OMB. And then, OMB has been
sitting on it the last 4 months. I find this really
embarrassing, disgraceful, and it's harmful to the children of
America that the FDA has been sitting by for years with this
power, enacted in 2009, and not even getting the first step in
the regulatory process completed which is to get out of draft
regulation.
I would like for you and your team to wake up every
morning, visit the OMB, and get that thing out there, because
people's lives are being impacted. We've had a huge
conversation about healthcare in our Nation. Well, this is
healthcare. This is about the addiction to products that cause
all kinds of disease over the course of one's life. And it's
not just the quality of life. It is also the cost to the
healthcare system treating all of these diseases.
Now the chair beat me to the punch in talking about the
next phase of this and you may have started seeing the
emergence of vape shops. This is a picture of a vape shop. It's
called ``DC Vape Joint,'' and it has a little underground
entrance to it here just a few blocks from our Capitol. Inside
of that ``vape joint'' shop, you find various displays of
liquid nicotine of all kinds. You find a rack of dozens and
dozens of different flavors.
And I brought two of these today because I think they
demonstrate an insidious strategy to addict our children to
nicotine. This one, and the chair had a similar bottle, called
``Scooby Snacks.'' Now, if that's not designed to appeal to a
child, I don't know what is. And, if you look at it closely, it
says, ``Zero milligrams of nicotine.'' Oh, there's no nicotine
in this. Is this a bottle of juice? We're not sure. There are
no ingredients listed on this. It's designed to go into an
electronic cigarette, but this is one of those many vials of
products that are out there being displayed. And the other
bottles look the same. And, here, we have ``gummy bear.'' Now,
``gummy bear,'' if you look closely, doesn't have zero
milligrams of nicotine. It has 10 milligrams.
And so here you have the starter kit, called ``gummy
snacks,'' to get kids using this stuff in electronic cigarettes
that look like this. They sell these little starter kits in
that vape shop. They're hoping kids will start with this zero
milligrams, but they'll soon be using the other. And if this
one with 10 milligrams, is flavored ``gummy bears?'' That's
obviously marketing to children.
The ``gummy bear'' one, actually, you can read the
ingredients on it. And it notes it contains nicotine, so on and
so forth, keep out of reach of children. This one, it's printed
in white on black. It's virtually impossible to read so I had
the expert eyes of my staff tell me what this actually said.
And, let's see. Where do I have that? Right here. This fine
print that is in the block that normally would have the
ingredients says, ``Stay weird, challenge the status quo,
everybody love everybody and, above all, enjoy yourself.''
That's the starter bottle for this line of nicotine products.
You all have got to get this deeming regulation done. You
have a responsibility to the health of American citizens, our
children, and 4 years and 4 months to get the first draft over
to OMB is unacceptable. And for OMB to be sitting on this now
over the last few months is unacceptable.
I had a timeline done of all the times I've contacted the
FDA about this. It was signed into law in June 2009 and, about
8 to 10 different times I've either sent letters, met with you,
or met with Lawrence Deyton who was Director of the Center for
Tobacco Products, and time and time again it was said, ``We're
working on it, we're working on it, we're working on it. We
want to make it, kind of, iron-solid.''
Well, there's no making anything that can't resist a
lawsuit. Of course there are going to be lawsuits. There are
teams of lawyers that've been preparing their cases over the
last 4 years. I'm sure they'll attack every angle once it's
done. But, to never get through the gates and get that process
started of getting a draft regulation, it's completely
absolutely unacceptable. And I have no idea--we've done
letters, we've done meetings, with you, we've done meetings
with folks that work for you.
How do we possibly convey the importance of this to the
future of America, to healthcare, and actually get some action?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, as I said, it has taken far too long. We
have been working very hard on this. It has been a complex
challenge for many reasons.
I do believe that very soon I will be able to call you and
say that the deeming rule is out. It will just be the first
step in a process, though. As you noted, it's a proposed rule.
But it is essential we get it out. I could not agree with you
more that this is a vital issue that these products represent
very real threats to health and to the future of our children.
We have to get it done and we have to get it done soon.
Senator Merkley. Well, I'm just asking you to make your
agency as visible as possible with OMB for their review to be
completed. If you can advise on how we can be helpful. It's
just, let's not let another month pass with this thing
gathering dust in some bureaucrat's closet.
Dr. Hamburg. I think we're almost to the point of the
proposed rule. And I promise you, you will be among the very
first calls that I make. But we have to respond, and your
criticisms are fair. This is one of the most important public
health challenges before us. And we have this unique
responsibility in terms of oversight of these products. And we
are committed to moving forward on this.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I may have not appreciated
the practical part of the question that we just heard and the
answer to it.
I was going to ask about the Modernization Act public
comment period and whether or not that was going to be
extended. There's some concern as I understand it that because
of overlapping and maybe other factors among the new rules that
the Food and Drug Administration intends to implement, whether
or not there isn't sufficient comment period.
PRODUCE SAFETY
According to one piece of information I have in front of
me, it says there was less than a month between publication of
the Feed Safety Rule and the comment deadline for the draft
rules on produce safety and preventive controls for human food.
Is that something we need to worry about or provide advice and
counsel to how do you do this and still recognize the fairness
to your consumers that this contemplates?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, thank you for your questions. And it
follows nicely on an early question.
As was noted, this is a sweeping transformation of the food
safety system in our country recognizing both domestic and
global needs. The law that was passed by Congress really laid
out a very ambitious agenda for us including a schedule for a
set of important rules.
The comment period is still open on two of the seven
foundational rules. But on the other ones we have tried to
extend comment periods to have a broad outreach and opportunity
for comment and input through, various mechanisms; an open
docket, public meetings, a range of discussions, etc.
We are currently continuing our interactions with the range
of stakeholders. And we are anticipating that we will re-
propose certain aspects of some of the critical rules; the
preventive controls for animal and human feed and produce where
there have been areas where the concerns have been very clear
and where we feel that we do need more opportunity to find the
right regulatory pathways to really develop the right
approaches that will make a difference. Make it a law that is
feasible for industry to implement, but achieve the goals of
reducing foodborne outbreaks for American consumers.
Senator Cochran. One of the joys of the community where I
lived back in Mississippi are the farmers' market outlets where
produce farmers bring in their wares and provide opportunities
for the general public to come look and buy fresh fruits and
vegetables, particularly.
And this is a very popular avenue for good diet habits.
Families go to the farmers' market on Saturdays and get up
early. And I can remember as a young boy my grandparents who
had truck farming interests in Mississippi, taking items from
the farm that had been grown there or the farm for display and
for sale. It was a very exciting thing. And, thinking back on
it, it was a real tradition that has carried forward even to
the present day. People really enjoy the opportunities that
this provides even if you're living in the city and not on a
farm like my family was when I was small.
What exemptions, if any, or differences, if any, should be
recognized and made available for small family farms to provide
their vegetables and fruits that's grown on their places, to be
seen and sold without fear of running afoul of some Federal
official coming and saying, ``You violated some rules and you
shut down this operation.''
And, to what extent do you think that the Federal
Government should be involved in that? Or should we let State
and local governments manage the Saturday morning visits to the
farmers' markets?
TESTER AMENDMENT
Dr. Hamburg. Well, we all enjoy, I think, those local
farmers' markets and they play an important role in the
community and for health. The law does include some explicit
recognition of that; the so-called tester amendment gets at
some of those issues about small growers and producers.
We also feel that the implementation of this new law has to
be done in partnership, importantly, including with State and
local agencies and organizations so that really it will reflect
and build on what is already being done and what works for
promoting and protecting the safety of the food supply. Whether
you're a big grower or a small grower, I think everyone wants
to produce great, high-quality food. But in terms of the
application of aspects to the Food Safety Modernization Act,
there is a recognition of the special needs of small farmers
and producers. And that is certainly reflected in how we are
addressing it and will be implementing it.
Senator Cochran. Does this mean there'll be exemptions for
State and local governments to regulate and monitor and
inspect, rather than having the Federal Government?
Dr. Hamburg. That there will be extensions; did you say?
Well, we're working closely with USDA and the agricultural
extension service as we try to implement this.
And part of what we are seeking in our budget request is
moneys that will enable us to actually give seed money to State
agencies as well as technical assistance and training so that
they can be full partners in implementation.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Let me just, one last comment on what Senator Merkley and I
asked you about earlier. And that is, I'll just say we can't
wait for another tragedy to act. And I know that you're trying
to act. But just count me in to work with you and industry to
try to facilitate moving this through as quickly as possible.
And, to me, it seems like the childproof packaging is a
commonsense first step. I think there's a lot of other things
we need to do but I would love to work with you on that and
continue to move that down the tracks as quickly as possible.
Dr. Hamburg. Thank you.
COMPOUNDING PHARMACIES
Senator Pryor. Let me change gears, if I can.
You mentioned compounding pharmacy in your opening
statement. And I guess what I heard you say is that the status
report on that is you're making progress. Kind of moving
through the various things you need to do there. But are there
any particular challenges? I mean is there a problem with the
law that was passed? Or is there something going on that you
didn't anticipate that the subcommittee needs to know about?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, I think that the passage of the DQSA is
a very important step. It clarifies one component of the prior
existing law that related to compounding pharmacies for the
FDA's so-called 503(a) which had been interpreted differently
in different courts. And so, we had sort of a patchwork in
terms of its application. So that is now clarified and it will
be uniformly applied across the Nation.
It also created a new category under 503(b), which allows
compounding pharmacies that are making certain high-risk
products, sterile injectables, to register with the FDA and be
subject to our oversight. And I think, to promote safer, better
quality products for patients, our challenge there is that this
is a voluntary program and some compounding pharmacies will
appropriately register with us. And actually, I think about 35
have to begin that process of coming under our regulatory
oversight for these very important, medically important
products, but high-risk products.
But there may be many other compounding pharmacies that
are, in fact, making these high-risk products that don't choose
to register with us, don't choose to become part of this new
regulatory framework. And we are concerned that some of those
manufacturers and the products they produce may not be
adequately safe for patients and medical care in our
communities.
So we need to maintain a very proactive posture here. We
need to continue to monitor who's out there doing what, which
is hard if they don't have to register with us. We need to work
closely with States who have the primary responsibility for
traditional compounding pharmacy regulation. So there are a lot
of challenges. And we think it's very, very important to
protecting public health that we maintain a very strong
presence in this arena and continue to build a strong program.
Senator Pryor. And, back to your budget, and looking at the
cost to you of implementing this and rolling this out and doing
all the things you need to do, as I understand the budget, in
order to find the resources you need, you're paying for that
with some unspecified cuts to other medical products' safety
activities. And do you know what those are yet? And do you know
how it's going to work?
WHITE OAK
Dr. Hamburg. Well, it is the case that the $25 million for
this new initiative is not new money but it is coming from
elsewhere within the agency. We have the opportunity to
reallocate $15 million that would have been used for White Oak,
our Washington headquarters' consolidation activities, that
will go unutilized because, sadly, the General Services
Administration (GSA) is not funded to do the construction
necessary to continue to build out our master plan for that
campus. And the rest of the moneys will be taken from other
efficiencies that we can find within the agency and really
trying to leverage resources as best we can.
This is so important to the health and safety of the
American public that we feel we need to have resources to build
a program that will make a difference. And, over time, I think
we're going to have to find other budget mechanisms to support
these crucial activities. And it is my guess, based on what I
see as the need out there and the demands on FDA that likely we
will have activities and responsibilities that outstrip the
available resources.
FOOD SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT
Senator Pryor. And let me change gears here, again, on the
Food Safety Modernization Act.
Mr. Tootle here, at some point, wrote on his blog, an FDA
blog, that ``With current resources, we will still be able to
issue the FSMA rules but we won't be able to effectively
implement them.'' And, obviously, I have that concern. I think
a lot of people have that concern just about resources and how
we're doing here. But are you requesting enough money to issue
these rules and to implement them?
Dr. Hamburg. This is a crucial time in terms of
implementing the program itself. We can complete the process of
finalizing the rules as we've been discussing, but what really
matters to the public and to safety is that we put these
programs in place in fiscal year 2015 and subsequent years are
going to be crucial to that effort.
And we need the moneys that we have requested in order to
fully implement and realize the potential of this program to
undertake certain critical activities that are vital to success
including building the modern Import Food Safety Program that
we need; including building the important partnership with the
States, that Senator Cochran and I were just discussing, in
terms of the seed money States need to build capacity and the
training and technical assistance that are necessary to be able
to ensure that they can be full partners in this effort. And we
need resources so that we can work as effectively as possible
with industry in terms of training and technical assistance as
they move to implement this important new law.
So, it is essential that we have these resources. And I
think that with those resources, we can really make this law
work and achieve the vision that Congress had when they passed
it.
Senator Pryor. But are you requesting enough for fiscal
year 2015 to get done what you need to get done in fiscal year
2015?
USER FEES
Dr. Hamburg. Well, the amount of money that is in the
budget request reflects our thoughtful and serious assessment
of what we would need and, I think, mirrors other assessments
that have been undertaken.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) came out with a
somewhat higher budget number for the overall implementation
needs of the Food Safety Modernization Act. We took another
look and tried to be a little bit more conservative. But, we do
need money to implement this.
We also realize that the user fee request is a challenge
that the user fee option is one that has been utilized in other
arenas of the FDA but not so much in the food space. And so, as
we look at fiscal year 2015, we see a budget need and the
pathway to get there is a complicated one. And we look forward
to working with you on that because, I think, we all share a
recognition that being able to really implement this law
matters to the health and safety of the American public and it
really matters to the food industry that plays such a crucial
role in our food safety system.
Senator Pryor. Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Commissioner, I think this is the fourth
year in a row that the budget has requested these fees. And I
think now they're around $220 million in new and repetitive
registration and import fees. I think it's unlikely that those
fees are approved.
Given the choice, would you rather just have appropriated
money from general revenue or have this financed on a fee
basis?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, what matters to me as Commissioner of
the FDA and to the team that's been working so hard on food
safety and what ultimately matters, I think, to our country, is
that we get the job done; that we successfully implement this
important law. And from my perspective, we need the dollars and
we need the money if fiscal year 2015 is a critical year for
implementation.
And we need a sustainable funding stream as well. Too
often, we have been in a position where there's a focus on an
issue and we get some resources and then they get cut back when
the attention shifts somewhere else. So we need a level of
funding that is both adequate and sustainable. And if it comes
from budget authority, that would be terrific.
Senator Blunt. Do you know anything that we don't know that
would make this request for fee increases more likely this time
than the precious three times you asked for it?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, I think that it is true that you've seen
this request before. We have had discussions with industry and
components of industry are more supportive than others in terms
of user fees. It will be a discussion that we'll continue.
Meanwhile, we are trying hard as an agency to implement this
important law and I think we have to be realistic about the
need for resources.
Senator Blunt. On the compounding resources, the CBO's
score, the Congressional Budget Office score was about half
what--was $12 million and declined pretty dramatically after
the first 3 years of getting you up to where, I guess, to
initiating the program.
I have two questions, really. One is why is this amount
twice as big as what the Congress anticipated it to be? And
two, the budget proposes reductions of $3.685 million in money
that previously would have gone to looking at human drugs,
$1.628 million reductions in biologics, a $2.88 million
reduction in medical device programs without any real
understanding on, any explanation on how those amounts of money
that previously we thought we needed in these areas could be
shifted now to compounding?
So why the bigger number? And is there any explanation for
the several millions of dollars shifted around internally; why
you don't need it there now and did need it there before?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, first, with respect to the CBO question.
We are really trying to better understand their estimates
because we don't think that they actually match what the needs
are. And this has been an evolving area of focus, but we also
think that there are some timing issues in terms of how and
when they did their assessment. And so we're going to be
working with them to better understand.
As far as the moving money around, the reductions that you
note are not because they're being redirected towards the
pharmacy compounding issue, we're going to be really looking
across the agency and looking to find efficiencies rather than
taking from other programs. But we are operating in a very
constrained budget environment. And, if you ask me, do we have
what we need in each of these critical program areas to do the
job that we've been asked to do and I think we must do, in most
cases, I do believe that the demands outstrip the resources.
So it's a very challenging time. And we are trying to
really look at programs in as clear-eyed a way as possible;
focus on the critical needs and priorities; and to try to build
strength in other ways. In certain instances, through
partnerships and collaborative activities, through economies of
scale and other efficiencies, and by really focusing on what
are the most critical and urgent needs.
SEQUESTERED FEES
Senator Blunt. In the fee area, one, our committee tried to
do all we could to be sure you had access to the fees that you
were able to collect, some of which were set aside by the
sequester process. And, from an authorizing point of view, Mr.
Pryor and I both have been very interested to see that happens
again. But did happen. We got those fees back. But I think
you've got another $79 million worth of fees that were
collected prior to 2010 that the Office of Management and
Budget says can't be spent.
Do you have any advice here, Mr. Cochran or Mr. Tootle, on
what we could do about that so that that money could actually
be used to advance the purposes it was collected for?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, first, let me thank you for the work
that you did to help address the problem of the sequestered
fees, the user fees, which was very worrisome and we're
grateful for the leadership that you brought to that.
With respect to the outstanding user fees, in terms of past
collection, you are right. I think the number is $79 million
and I think you've created a framework in terms of language
that enables us to engage in discussions with the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and we're actively in that process
because we would--as I was saying, in answer to your last
question, we do have critical needs and those resources could
make a difference.
Senator Blunt. Right. Well you do have critical needs and
you do have this money that's been collected for the purposes
of some of these needs specifically.
And I'd certainly be willing to, and have been willing to
be as helpful as I could be to convince the Office of
Management and Budget, or whoever needs to be convinced. Maybe
we need to do that with some further language again this year,
but we want to work with you on that. There's no reason to have
that money collected as fees for a purpose not to be somehow
fenced off from ever serving that purpose. So----
Dr. Hamburg. Thank you.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. I've already----
Senator Pryor. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much.
I thank the Senator from Mississippi and the chairman and
ranking member.
OFFICE OF FOODS AND VETERINARY MEDICINE--SPENT GRAINS
Commissioner, I understand that Senator Blunt has brought
up already the issue of spent grains. Grains that have been
used to make beer and serve no further purpose to the brewer
and are now being used for animal feed. I have to tell you, but
I think the FDA's approach is a perfect example of a solution
in search of a problem. This practice has been going on for
literally centuries where brewers have donated or sold, often
for little money, their spent grains to farmers.
In Maine, we have an emerging craft beer industry that now
employs over 1,000 people and 90 percent of spent grains
produced by craft brewers are disposed of as animal feed. To
me, this makes great sense. It recycles the remainder of the
spent grains. And there simply is not evidence of problems.
I understand, and agree, that it's essential that we ensure
the safety of our Nation's food supply. But this is an example
of regulatory overreach that will hurt both the small
employers, that our craft brewers are, and the farmers that are
working so cooperatively with them. So I want to just second
the concerns that Senator Blunt has raised and urge you to take
a really hard look at what the impact of that rule is and
whether you're really solving a problem or creating one.
Dr. Hamburg. Well, thank you.
And you were not present when we had the early discussion.
Senator Collins. Correct.
Dr. Hamburg. I'll just reiterate that we have heard these
concerns. Senator Blunt actually raised some additional ones
around this notion of sustainable agriculture and recycling of
product. We actually do think that this is an arena where there
are sensible, reasonable solutions and we're committed to
working towards those. And we think that this issue can be
effectively addressed when we put forward a re-proposal this
summer of some of the components of the human and animal feed
preventive controls rule and the produce rule.
ARTIFICIAL PANCREAS
Senator Collins. Good. I hope we will see a significant
change.
I know that you're also aware, well aware, of my strong
interest in the development and approval of an artificial
pancreas, which would help people living with type 1 or
juvenile diabetes to achieve dramatically better control over
their blood glucose levels until a biological cure is found.
And I want to start by commending you and your team for all
your work to advance these critically important technologies by
streamlining the review structure in improving outpatient
studies in a timely manner. An extremely important step was
taken last year when your agency approved a Low Glucose Suspend
system which is considered, in many ways, to be the first
generation of an artificial pancreas technology.
I can tell you from the long years of work that I've done
with families with children with type 1 that they are so eager
for a breakthrough in this area. I know you're collaborating
closely with the families and with stakeholders like the
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and with medical
researchers outside the agency. But could you give me an update
on your timeline, your strategy, for ensuring that these very
promising new technologies reach patients as soon as possible?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, thank you for the question and your
appreciation of how hard we've been working in this area. I do
think it's really a model for the importance of FDA working in
full partnership with the scientific search community, medical
care community, and importantly patients and families.
The development of an artificial pancreas would transform
the health and the quality of life of individuals living with
type 1 diabetes and of course to their families as well. And
it's not yet available anywhere in the world but we are really
working hard to make it a reality.
We put forward final guidance several years ago to really
lay out what would be the regulatory pathway to try to
encourage manufacturers to move in this direction and ensure
the right research and study. We now also have, I think, 12
clinical studies, some community-based studies, including one
at a summer camp, to try to really understand how the current
prototypes would work and, we want to move this as swiftly and
surely as possible.
We want to make sure that the product is safe and effective
because if you are relying on this for the assessment of your
glucose levels, in a continuing way and the delivering of
insulin, it needs to do it right. But we think the science and
technology is coming together with an acute and currently unmet
medical need. And it's a very exciting and promising
undertaking.
And I would just add that it also, I think, is a model for
other areas of medical product development as well; the
partnership with key stakeholders and really trying to leverage
the opportunities in science and technology today with critical
unmet medical needs.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, could I do one more? Or--thank you very much.
SEIZURE MEDICATION--CANNABIDIOL
Commissioner, I recently had a very poignant meeting with a
family in my office in Maine whose daughter had suffered for
years, since she was age 11, from uncontrolled seizures. And
she had been unable to control her convulsions with regular
seizure medications and her family finally decided to have her
try a tincture extracted from marijuana with a high cannabidiol
(CBD) value, which does not cause the psychogenic effects of
smoking marijuana. And, just so my colleagues don't
misunderstand, I'm opposed to the legalization of marijuana the
way that Colorado has done.
But, for this young girl, the results have truly been
remarkable and life changing. She's now a college freshman. She
has not had seizures in many, many months whereas before she
was having them all the time. And she's not, obviously,
experiencing any kind of high because of the tincture that she
is taking; so it's not interfering with her in that way.
I know that a drug containing highly purified CBD, similar
to the tincture being used by my constituent, is currently
under investigation by the FDA under its expanded access
Investigational New Drug program to help treat a few children
with intractable epilepsy or other kinds of seizures.
Could you tell me where you are in this process? Has
consideration been given to expanding the number of young
people who could participate in the program? And, as a
physician, do you have any preliminary thoughts on whether this
may, in fact, be a promising treatment for children who have
uncontrollable seizures?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, you raise many important issues.
With respect to a specific product that might be under
review by the FDA, without permission from the sponsor I can't
speak to that. But what I certainly can say is that, number
one, I think it's very important that we really study potential
medical applications of marijuana and marijuana components. The
active ingredients in a controlled way so that we can really
understand what works, how, and for what conditions. So I think
that is a very important undertaking. And certainly, this issue
of that class of product for epilepsy has been brought to my
attention as an area where there are scientists and medical
providers who believe it holds great promise.
With respect to expanded access while a drug is under
study, we are very responsive to applications or requests that
come. At the end of the day, it's the company that has to
decide with affirmation from us to make the product available.
But that is something where, over a period of many years now,
we have had an active program. And, the majority of requests
for expanded access that come before us are supported by the
FDA.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
FEED RULE
I have about four or five questions left. I'm just going to
try to run through these very quickly.
One is to follow-up on a question by Senator Blunt and
Senator Collins, on the feed rule, the feed rule. And actually,
mine is a little different take on that. I know that under the
current rule, as I understand it, feed mills are exempted in
situations where the owners of the mill are feeding animals it
owns, on land it owns. Animals it owns on land it owns. And
that's probably a sensible exemption or exception. But the
question is should it be extended because in the poultry world
and in the pork or swine industry world, oftentimes they own
the animals and they own the mill but they contract out to
independent farmers to do that. Or do you know are all
considering extending that exemption?
Dr. Hamburg. What I would like to do, with your permission,
is take this back to the experts within the FDA because this is
an important question, but it's at a level of detail that I
really can't answer.
[The information follows:]
Section 415 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C
Act) requires the registration of facilities engaged in manufacturing,
processing, packing, or holding food for consumption in the U.S. These
requirements are implemented in Title 21 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, part 1, subpart H, Registration of Food Facilities. Some
facilities, e.g., farms, are not required to register as a food
facility under this subpart. The definition of furm is found in 21 CPR
1.227(b)(3):
Farm means a facility in one general physical location devoted to
the growing and harvesting of crops, the raising of animals (including
seafood), or both. Washing, trimming of outer leaves of, and cooling
produce are considered part of harvesting. [The preceding sentence
would be deleted under the proposed rule ``Current Good Manufacturing
Practice and Hazard Analysis and RiskBased Preventive Controls for
Human Food,'' 78 Fed. Reg. 3646, 3795 (Jan. 16, 2103).] The term
``farm'' includes:
(i) Facilities that pack or hold food, provided that all food used
in such activities is grown, raised, or consumed on that farm or
another farm under the same ownership; and
(ii) Facilities that manufacture/process food, provided that all
food used in such activities is consumed on that farm or another farm
under the same ownership.
Section 103 of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act applies only
to facilities that are required to register under section 415 of the
FD&C Act and its implementing regulations. At this time, FDA is not
intending to extend/change the definition of ``farm'' to include farms
providing animal food to other farms. The feed mill in the scenario
presented would probably be required to register as a food facility as
the feed is not being consumed on a farm under the same ownership as
the feed mill.
Senator Pryor. Sure. Okay. That's great.
DRUG SHORTAGES
And another one, I'm totally changing gears here as well,
is on drug shortages. And I think we kind of barely touched on
that in testimony or in questions. But, I know that there are
drug shortages and there have been some Government
Accountability Office (GAO) recommendations. And I'm just
curious about the status of that and if you're working with
industry to try to make those drug shortages less frequent and
less severe?
Dr. Hamburg. Yes.
Well, it's a really important area. And, as you know, over
the years there have been shortages in medicines that are
really critical to the practice of medicine and the care of
patients. We have seen some very significant progress. We went
from, I think it was 251 shortages a couple of years ago, to 44
this past year. But we're seeing another trend that we're
paying attention to which is we're seeing some of the shortages
sustained for a longer period of time.
A number of things are making a difference as we respond to
shortages and helping us really grapple working with industry,
of course, who on the frontlines of this to address the
problem. One is that through the Food and Drug Administration
Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) we got new authorities to
require companies to report to us not just if they were going
to discontinue a medically important product within a 6-month
timeframe, I think it was, but if there was reason to believe
that there was an imminent threat to a product, a supply chain
disruption, et cetera. So that's given us an opportunity to
engage much earlier with companies that might have emerging or
real shortages.
We work closely with companies to try to address the cause
of the shortages whether it's quality or lack of availability
of a product so that we can keep that product in the
marketplace. If it's a quality issue that requires them to
actually stop manufacturing for a while, we work with them to
try to fix the problem as quickly as possible.
We also try to identify other manufacturers making that
same kind of product and encourage them and work with them to
actually ramp up the manufacturer. Or sometimes identify a
manufacturer who might not be making that specific product but
could make that product and, again, we would work with them to
quickly move them towards an ability to make that product.
And when necessary, we also will look oversees to see if
there's an equivalent product that's available and approved in
another country but not here and then we will move to make that
drug available through importation to address a shortage need.
So we have a range of tools. We have tried to be very
proactive and responsive and flexible working with companies.
There are some fundamental problems in that the majority of
these shortages are in the arena of generic sterile injectables
which are drugs that have a low return on investment but high
requirements in terms of manufacturing capability and upkeep to
keep the manufacturing at the appropriate quality level. There
are, in many of these areas, limited manufacturers who are
still making these products. So if one has a problem either in
quality or supply chain, it puts at risk the national supply.
So, it is something that we need to continue to work on. We
do believe we have made progress. We do believe that working
with companies around a broader quality agenda and really
modernizing manufacturing as part of that will make a long-term
difference.
DRUG APPROVAL DUCHENNE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY
Senator Pryor. Okay.
And we talked about before the wide range of topics that
you have to deal with. Here's another topic: Duchenne muscular
dystrophy. My understanding is there's a new therapy that's in
the pipeline that shows some promise. And, apparently, it's not
a cure but it just maybe will delay the onset of some of the
symptoms of the disease. And my question really is, is this
going to be a good candidate for accelerated approval or is
that not a consideration right now?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, again, I can't really speak to the
specifics of a product that's under review. But what I can say
here is that we all know that Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a
devastating disease for patients and their families.
We also recognize that advances in science and technology
are really opening up huge new opportunities to find meaningful
treatments. Maybe even someday a preventive or a cure. And we
are working hard with the scientific research community, as
well as the patient community, to try to find a pathway to
realize the promise of science for these patients.
There has been a huge effort around this disease and the
products that are in development. I would say that it's an area
where some of the top scientists and leaders in FDA have
committed a huge amount of time and effort. And I think we are
making progress. And, I really hope so because it's such a
devastating disease. But the science and product development is
very promising.
Senator Pryor. Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Well, on that topic, I know we've had a
number of Missouri families and clearly the individuals
involved want to find the best help they can find and they want
to find it as quickly as they can. And I'm glad you're pursuing
that and hope we can find the answer to some of these possible
cures, this one particularly, as quickly as it's possible to do
and to safely do.
MENU LABELING
On menu labeling, when do you expect the final rule to come
out?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, sadly, this is a conversation that we've
had before.
Senator Blunt. We have.
Dr. Hamburg. It has been a long undertaking. And as you, I
think, noted in your opening remarks, what had initially seemed
like a relatively straightforward undertaking, menu labeling
the nutritional content, especially calories, has been much
more challenging than expected. But we are moving towards a
final rule. And I do believe that I will not have to come to
another budget hearing and have this discussion with you. But,
no, I take very seriously----
Senator Blunt. Well, depending on the ruling, you might.
You might have to have this discussion.
Dr. Hamburg. But you have raised a number of important
issues over time and issues that have also been reflected in
other comments on the proposed rule. And, you know, we have
received lots of comments and undertaken a thoughtful,
considerate analysis. And I think many of your concerns will be
reflected back in the final rule.
Senator Blunt. Some of those, as you know, would include,
like, prepared food is a very small part of what a grocery
store might do, a drive-through location, a delivery location
where very few of the customers would ever see what was posted
on the wall no matter how many things you posted on the wall.
Do you have any anticipation, once you propose the rule,
how long the compliance period would be?
Dr. Hamburg. You know, I actually don't know the answer to
that.
My colleague Mike proposed a year.
But the other thing I might just mention, I think you're
probably aware, is that the menu labeling requirement applies
to restaurant or restaurant-like establishments that are chains
of 20 or more and have consistent menus. So that helps to
narrow the focus. Not all restaurants will be asked to
implement this menu labeling.
Senator Blunt. Okay, good.
MITOCHONOLNAL DISEASES
As the chairman has prefaced many of his questions on a
very different topic, the FDA recently held a public meeting on
reproductive technology. The purpose of the meeting and quotes
was for the prevention of transmission of mitochondrial
diseases ended those quotes, which involves cryoembryo using
DNA from three parents.
The advisory committee, the FDA briefing for the committee,
said ``that the FDA recognizes that there are ethical and
social policy issues related to genetic modification of eggs
and embryos and that these issues have the potential to affect
regulatory decisions; however, such issues are outside the
scope of this meeting.''
My view of that would be that the ethical questions
associated with the procedures should be considered before we
have a lot of discussion about how you do this. I'm just
wondering if the ethical bridge is outside the scope of FDA.
When do you think we should have that ethical discussion?
Dr. Hamburg. We think those discussions should be ongoing
and we are working to make sure that those discussions are
engaged. We don't believe that we are the right agency to lead
those discussions and it needs to be a broader societal
discussion as well as bringing important expertise to bear. But
research is going on in this area of what's called ``oocyte
modification'' in assisted reproduction to address
mitochondrial disease.
And we undertook this public meeting in order to begin to
understand what is the nature of the science and what is being
done. I would add that research is being done in this country
and in other countries and is being looked at as a policy
matter in other countries of the world as well. But it's a very
preliminary discussion and we do feel strongly that the broader
social and ethical context has to be addressed.
And, as I said, we are working to make sure that that
happens as we also make an effort to understand what's really
happening in terms of the scientific research. And, of course,
mitochondrial disease is a serious problem. It affects a
limited number of people in this country, but for those who it
affects it is a very serious concern. And so, there's an
eagerness to understand what kinds of scientific opportunities
might exist to address it. But we are not unaware of all of the
other issues that are raised and feel that those need to be
addressed as a high priority.
Senator Blunt. And I think you said you were working to
ensure that the ethical questions are being addressed, though,
not by you.
Dr. Hamburg. Well, we would take part just because I think
this is an issue that needs broad engagement. And, you know,
certainly we would not move forward. We don't think that the
science is ready to move forward based on that public meeting
in terms of moving to clinical studies. But I think that we
understand the importance of these issues and the broader
context for this kind of scientific research. And so, as I
said, we want to make sure that all of the issues; scientific,
social and ethical, are examined fully.
Senator Blunt. Well, I would hope so. And I hope you
continue to use some of you efforts and the ongoing discussions
with groups who should be talking about this to do so. You
know, if the purpose of looking at this in the very narrow way
you did was to see if it was just so dangerous that nobody
should even being talking about it, I might understand that.
But when you begin to talk about things that are this different
from the way humans have always procreated and the potential of
what might happen unknown, there is an ethical bridge here that
we all understand that we're crossing that somebody should be
in charge of that discussion or ensuring that that discussion
happens before agencies of Government decide, well, this is the
only thing we really have to do with this, so we should step
forward and do our part of this before society has had the kind
of discussion they need to have about the ethics of this kind
of science and this kind of activity.
But, Dr. Hamburg, I'm always really impressed by both your
broad understanding of what you do and your willingness to look
at things that you realize you don't understand yet because
this is a huge portfolio. And the worse person we could have
doing this job is somebody who thought they had all the answers
on every topic. And I think today, again, you've expressed your
interest and willingness to look at things that have broader
context than maybe the agency initially thought they had. And I
appreciate you and your responses to the questions today.
Dr. Hamburg. Thank you.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
ELECTRONIC DRUG LABELING
I have two final questions for you and they're going to be
quick. One is something I didn't know about until recently and
that is the electronic distribution of prescribing information
that goes along with drugs.
My understanding is that this is the paper insert that you
kind of get in there and unfold and look at it if you ever want
to. By the way, I probably throw mine away more often than I
read it. But every now and then, I want to see it and I want to
have it. But I can think of lots of examples where that
information could be and should be included to the end user.
But anyway, we can talk about those if you want to. But
regardless of my personal feelings about it, my understanding
is that there's a possible rule change on that ending with the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), and so I
was wondering if you have an update on that or a status report
on that?
Dr. Hamburg. Well, I think we are looking towards making
information more available on the Web. Some of us are slower to
fully adapt. But, you know, there is a sense that that is, in
fact, how many people get their information and if it's on the
Web it's there. As you pointed out, many people just throw away
their labels, their insert information, and I think that is a
concern.
In addition, I think one of our critical goals is
manifested across various aspects of what we do is how can we
communicate the important information in a way that's more
understandable, accessible, and useful to consumers. And so, I
think the move towards the electronic here is really an effort
to try to make the information, in fact, more available to
consumers.
Senator Pryor. I think, again from my standpoint, I think
of maybe seniors don't, typically don't always have the
technology other people do. Rural people sometimes have
challenges connecting to the Internet. You know, you think of
scenarios: People traveling; people with kids and the kids are
having a sleepover somewhere. I mean, I can just sort of see
where that paper, from my standpoint, should continue to follow
the--we'll see what comes out there.
And the last thing, of course, I want to do, I've heard you
sing the praises and you've heard me sing the praise of the
NCTR many times. And I know that we were able to get them some
additional money. And you obviously care about NCTR. And could
you just give me a little update on what you're seeing down
there and how things are going at the National Center for
Toxicological Research?
Dr. Hamburg. Yes.
NANOTECHNOLOGY
Well, we do have a shared interest in NCTR and it really
does represent a unique resource for FDA and for the Nation as
a research organization that is really solely based on studying
really important issues about toxicology, safety, and risk of a
range of products that we regulate. And we have been able, I
think, to accomplish some remarkable things there and have been
very grateful for the interest and support that you have
provided over the years.
Most recently, I think we've really done some
groundbreaking work in the area of nanotechnology, including in
partnership with the research universities in Arkansas and the
State of Arkansas. Through a research alliance and
collaboration we've been able to really build important
programs to deepen our understanding of the toxicology of
various components of products to develop new tools; to assess
potential toxic effects more effectively and swiftly and
earlier in a product development process, which is important in
terms of saving time and saving costs; and developing new
models that whether it's biomarkers or bioimaging that enable
us to have new models rather than relying on what our
increasingly outdated approaches as well, where you just try to
study something in an animal model which isn't really adequate
for a human model, and then when you try to make the
translation it may not work.
So really trying to apply cutting-edge science and
technology to better and improve toxicology assessment
technologies. They've also been a leader for us and more
broadly in terms of the area of bioinformatics and how do we
really harness the tools of computers and information
technology to deepen our understanding of existing data, our
collection of new data, and our analysis of critical problems
for health. So they really are a very, very important resource.
And, we have been able to, in recent years, undertake some
important new projects. And we appreciated the one-time money
that we were provided with last year that went to support some
of the important activities I just mentioned.
Senator Pryor. Well, thank you for that.
And also, let me say, thank you for this hearing. We've
kept you here for 95 minutes. You've been on the hot seat for
that entire time. But thank you for being here and doing this.
What we're going to do is we're going to leave the record
open here for the subcommittee members to submit additional
questions if they have them for another week, which is
Thursday, April 10, and then we'll allow you all three or four
weeks to respond to those.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
But anyway, thank you again for your leadership and for the
FDA and all the things FDA does. And, with that, we'll conclude
this hearing.
Thank you.
Dr. Hamburg. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., Thursday, April 3, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
----------
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 2015
budget request for programs within the subcommittee's
jurisdiction.]
Prepared Statement of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
Dear Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies: The Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony for the
fiscal year 2015 appropriations. The Academy is the world's largest
organization of food and nutrition professionals, and is committed to
improving the nation's health with nutrition services and interventions
provided by registered dietitian nutritionists. Nationwide, The Academy
has over 75,000 members.
As Congress begins work on fiscal year 2015 appropriations, we
strongly urge you to fully fund Federal nutrition programs that will
provide a return on investment to improve health. Investment in these
programs through the appropriations process will help prevent costly
healthcare expenses due to chronic diseases.
agriculture, food and nutrition research
As you consider the fiscal year 2015 budget, we ask for your
support of the President's budget for the National Institute of Food
and Agriculture (NIFA). The National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA) funds agriculture and nutrition research that is vital for
communities and the nation to have new technologies and intervention to
have healthy Americans. In doing so, we ask that you:
--Continue to support NIFA research efforts that work with local
communities and states to conduct high-quality research to help
assure that our food supply is adequate for the future; and
--Consider restoring the funding for Agricultural Research Services
(ARS) to 2014 levels. ARS is an essential in-house, scientific
research agency. This agency often provides the solutions to
food and nutrition problems that affect Americans every day,
from field to table.
supplemental nutrition assistance program (snap)
nutrition education and obesity prevention grant program (snap-ed)
SNAP helps to put food on the table for about 47 million people
each month. SNAP participation closely follows changes in unemployment
and underemployment and so is responsive to changes in need. SNAP-Ed
empowers participants to make healthy food choices using this knowledge
received from the innovative and engaging nutrition education to
purchase, prepare and store nutritious foods. During this
appropriations cycle, we ask that you:
--Support SNAP as it continues to respond to the elevated need for
food assistance with timely benefits; and
--Fund SNAP-Ed at $407 million, as mandated in the Food and Nutrition
Act of 2008.
the emergency food assistance program (tefap)
TEFAP is a win/win for farmers, producers, processors and low-
income consumers to assure access to healthy foods through our nation's
charitable food system, delivering nutrient-rich food through pantries,
shelters, and kitchens and providing support for storage and
distribution. The TEFAP program staff works in tandem with SNAP-Ed
staff to help assure the consumption of these foods through nutrition
education including preparation and safe storage. We ask that you:
--Provide the authorized funding level of $100 million for TEFAP
storage and distribution funds. The current funding level of
$49 million only covers 33 percent of the cost of distributing
TEFAP commodities.
--Fund TEFAP commodities at $324 million, as provided by the 2014
farm bill. TEFAP commodities are distributed to low-income
people through food banks, pantries, kitchens and shelters.
commodity supplemental food program (csfp)
CSFP provides a nutritious monthly food package to approximately
580,000 low-income participants, primarily to vulnerable low-income
seniors. The CSFP food package is designed to meet the specific
nutritional needs of this target population, combating the poor health
conditions often found in food insecure seniors. We ask that you:
--Fund CSFP at $208 million, the amount necessary to maintain current
caseload; and
--Provide an additional $5 million allow CSFP to serve the six
additional states who meet the criteria set out by USDA for a
quality program (CT, HI, ID, MD, MA, RI).
child nutrition programs
Child nutrition programs operate in school, daycare, after school,
and summer settings, providing nutritious meals and snacks to fuel
children with the energy they need to thrive in the classroom and
beyond.
School Meals
We ask that you:
--Support the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast
Program, Summer Food Service Program, Child and Adult Care Food
Program, and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to provide
children with nutritious meals and snacks; and
--Provide $35 million in grants for school meal equipment to help
schools upgrade their kitchen equipment. This will allow
schools to serve healthier meals at a more reasonable price,
and will expand access to feeding programs. This is a long
overdue change for schools.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children
(WIC)
WIC serves low-income women and young children until the age of
five, providing them with a nutritious monthly food package, nutrition
education, healthcare and social service referrals to ensure that this
at-risk population receives the quality nutrition and healthcare
essential for healthy growth and development. Please:
--Fund WIC at $6.823 billion to support a projected caseload of 8.7
million participants. Monitor food cost inflation and caseload
to ensure that appropriated levels meet anticipated needs.
Provide $150 million to replenish the WIC Contingency Fund for
unforeseen food cost or participation increases.
--Provide $60 million for breastfeeding peer counselors to improve
breastfeeding initiation and duration among the target
population, $30 million for Management Information Systems/
Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) funding to improve client
access, retailer efficiency, and program integrity, $14 million
for infrastructure improvements, and $5 million for program
research and evaluation.
supporting local farmers and improving health
To support local farmers while improving the health of Americans,
we ask that you:
--Provide $17 million for WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program
(FMNP), which provides vouchers to low-income women, infants,
and children;
--Provide $21 million for the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition
Program, which provides vouchers for low-income seniors; and
--Provide $9 million for Community Food Projects to meet food needs
of low-income people, increase community self-reliance, and
promote comprehensive responses to food, farm and nutrition
issues.
developing leaders
To ensure a pipeline of leaders dedicated to improving health and
reducing hunger in our country, we ask that you:
--Provide $3 million for the Congressional Hunger Center for the
operation of the Bill Emerson National Hunger Fellowships and
Mickey Leland International Hunger Fellowships, which focus on
developing solutions to hunger based on experience at local
field placements and national policy organizations.
We appreciate your support on these recommendations. We know that
these expenditures will make for smart, long-term investments into the
health of Americans.
[This statement was submitted by Mary Pat Raimondi MS, RD Vice
President, Strategic Policy and Partnerships Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics.]
______
Prepared Statement the of Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has submitted testimony for
the fiscal year 2015 appropriations. We would like to add an additional
request that will help improve the health of Americans. As we shared in
our previous letter, the Academy is the world's largest organization of
food and nutrition professionals, and is committed to improving the
nation's health with nutrition services and interventions provided by
registered dietitian nutritionists. Nationwide, the Academy has over
75,000 members.
The newly-passed Agricultural Act of 2014 offers new opportunities
for healthy foods to be incorporated in the diet. Pulse foods are some
of the best sources of important nutrients including dietary fiber,
vegetable protein, iron and potassium that one can have in his or her
diet. Introducing children to pulse foods early in life will help
develop life-long habits to incorporate these foods in their diets.
Encouraging healthy eating habits in our school children will help
prevent chronic health issues, like obesity and type-2 diabetes. Pulse
foods are also known to be economical sources of protein that can help
to reduce hunger throughout the world.\1\ Having research dollars for
pulse foods will promote the benefits and identify new ways of
increasing consumption of these foods. We asked that you include the
following in funding:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dilis V, Trichopoulou A (2009) Nutritional and health
properties of pulses. Mediterranean Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism
1: 149-157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
pulse crop health initiative-fiscal year 2015 appropriation request $25
million
The Pulse Crop Health Initiative was included in Section 7209 (e)
of the Research Title of the Agricultural Act of 2014. The law provides
an authorization of $125 million dollars over the next 5 years to find
solutions, through research on pulse crops, to the critical health,
functionality, sustainability and food security challenges facing U.S.
citizens and the global community. The initiative will focus on three
major research areas: health and nutrition, increasing functionality
and enhancing productivity and sustainability of pulse crops. We ask
you to fully fund the Pulse Crop Health Initiative in the Agriculture
Act of 2014 with an appropriation of $25 million for fiscal year 2015.
school pulse crop products program-fiscal year 2015 appropriation
request $2 million
The Pulse Crop Products program was included in Section 4213 of the
Nutrition Title of the Agricultural Act of 2014. The law authorizes $10
million dollars over the next 5 years. The purpose of the Pulse Crop
Products program is to increase awareness of nutrient-dense pulse crops
and increase their use in school meals. We ask you to fully fund the
School Pulse Crop Products program in the Agricultural Act of 2014 with
an appropriation of $2 million for fiscal year 2015.
[This statement was submitted by Mary Pat Raimondi, Vice President,
Strategic Policy and Partnerships of the Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
(AFRI) Coalition
The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Coalition is
pleased to submit the following testimony on the fiscal year 2015
appropriation for the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Agriculture
and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). The AFRI Coalition, comprised of
more than forty scientific societies and science advocacy organizations
is dedicated to raising awareness of the importance of AFRI and the
critical research it funds.
The AFRI Coalition is concerned with the Administration's proposed
funding level for AFRI, and strongly urges Congress to fund AFRI with
at least $360 million in fiscal year 2015, far less than its authorized
level of $700 million.
AFRI, administered by the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA), is the premier competitive grants program for
fundamental and applied research, extension and education in support of
our nation's food and agricultural systems. AFRI funds high priority
research grants in areas of critical concern to the United States
including: food safety and security, agricultural production and
products, plant and animal health, nutrition and human health and
agricultural economics and others.
Research supported by AFRI aims to solve critical scientific,
agricultural and societal problems and deserves steady, predictable and
sustainable funding. The future of our food and agricultural systems, a
basis for human health, rely on it. Additionally, for every Federal
dollar spent on publicly funded agricultural research, $20 or more is
generated in the U.S. economy.\1\ A strengthened commitment to
investments in science for food and agriculture, especially during
difficult economic times, is essential to maintain and grow our
nation's food, economic and national security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Economic Returns to U.S. Public Agricultural Research,
Alston, Julian M.; Andersen, Matthew A.; James, Jennifer S.; Pardey,
Philip G., University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics,
July 2011, http://purl.umn.edu/95522.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AFRI Coalition appreciates the opportunity to provide written
testimony and would be pleased to assist the Subcommittee as it
considers the fiscal year 2015 appropriation for AFRI. To learn more
about the Coalition or to see a list of members, please visit: http://
africoalition.org.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA
Chairman Pryor and Ranking Member Blunt: The Alliance for a
Stronger FDA respectfully requests that the Subcommittee recognize the
critical role and expanding public health mission of the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration by providing fiscal year 15 budget authority
appropriations of $2.784 billion for the agency. This amount is $223
million above fiscal year 14 BA appropriations funding and $200 million
above the President's request for BA appropriations.
The Alliance is a 200-member coalition of all FDA's stakeholders--
consumers, patients, health professionals, trade groups and industry.
Our sole purpose is to advocate for increased appropriated resources
for the FDA, an agency that oversees 100 percent of drugs, vaccines,
medical devices, dietary supplements and personal care products and 80
percent of our nation's food supply.
Altogether, the products and industries regulated by FDA account
for nearly 25 percent of all consumer spending in the United States. A
strong FDA is essential to the U.S. economy, jobs, and the balance of
trade and is critical to homeland security. Unlike other U.S.
regulatory agencies, all FDA stakeholders (including consumers,
patients and industry) support increased funding for the agency.
The current year's budget authority (BA) appropriation of $2.561
billion helped FDA rebound from the fiscal year 13 sequester and regain
and slightly advance above its fiscal year 12 funding level. However,
in the interim, the continuing growth of FDA's responsibilities has
meant that the appropriation is still dramatically less than the amount
the agency needs. The agency's mission is ``at risk.''
recognizing that fda's public health mission is vital and growing
New laws take enormous resources to implement. Once implemented,
they permanently increase agency responsibilities. Since 2009, Congress
has identified a number of additional public health needs that fall
within FDA's jurisdiction, resulting in at least seven new laws:
--Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (2009)
--Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (2010)
--Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act (2010)
--Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act (2010)
--Food Safety Modernization Act (2011),
--FDA Safety and Innovation Act (2012), including re-authorization of
the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric
Research Equity Act
--Drug Quality and Security Act (2013)
Other growing responsibilities include: globalization, scientific
complexity, promoting innovation to benefit patients and consumers,
public health emergencies, national security, and increasing industry
size and activity. In sum, the current appropriations level is totally
inadequate to make up for decades of underfunding AND new and growing
responsibilities, including but not limited to new laws enacted since
2009.
globalization and scientific complexity require fda to expand its
activities each year to protect and expand public and individual health
Even were Congress not active in legislating new mandates for FDA,
the agency's mission and responsibilities would grow enormously each
year for reasons unrelated to new laws. Our remarks will concentrate on
two: globalization and increasing scientific complexity.
One of FDA's highest priorities over the last 6 years has been to
adjust for the accelerating globalization in all product categories
overseen by the agency. For example:
--Food Imports are growing 10 percent annually. Altogether, 10-15
percent of all food consumed in the U.S. is imported. This
includes nearly 2/3 of fruits and vegetables and 80 percent of
seafood.
--Device Imports are also growing about 10 percent annually.
Currently, about 50 percent of all medical devices used in the
US are imported.
--Drug Imports are growing quickly, about 13 percent annually. About
80 percent of active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) are
manufactured abroad, as are 40 percent of finished drugs.
Inspections at U.S. ports-of-entry are critical, but ultimately
less than 2 percent of shipments can be inspected. Instead, FDA is
following Congressional direction by increasing foreign inspections and
establishing foreign offices to work globally to improve the standards
and quality of products entering the U.S.
The value of this approach cannot really be quantified. For
example, the cost of illness, death and lost markets--from just a
single bad actor in a single food category--can cost as much or more
than the entire investment we put into FDA's food safety activities.
Drugs and devices are harder to track for a variety of reasons, but
there is no reason to doubt a similar effect.
Greater scientific complexity is diffused into every part of the
agency and its mission. FDA has adopted a number of initiatives,
including creation of a commissioner-level science office, investment
in regulatory science, expanded and more intensive training, changes in
time and manpower allotments for complex assignments, and significant
reworking of the drug and medical device approval pathways to benefit
patients. Further, food and medical product safety inspections have
also become more complex--requiring more scientific training, more
preparation and, often, more time during the inspection itself.
Specifically, we have identified five areas in which FDA is
improving product reviews to respond to more complex science and assure
that patient need for new therapies is being met. Each comes at a cost
in additional dollars/manpower:
--Sponsors Need More Meeting Time and Other Feedback from FDA
--Applications Require More Patients, Study Sites and Analysis
--Enhanced Timeliness and Consistency of Product Review
--Expansion of Pre-and Post-Market Safety
--Enhance Innovation, Speed Approvals
A 2011 study quantified some of the changes that require more FDA
resources:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change 00--11
All Therapeutic Areas, All Phases 00--03 08--11 %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unique medical and compliance procedures per protocol (median).. 20.5 30.4 48%
Total procedures per protocol (median).......................... 105.9 166.6 57%
Total investigative site work burden (median units)............. 28.9 47.5 64%
Total eligibility criteria...................................... 31 46 58%
Median study duration in days................................... 140 175 25%
Median number of CRF pages per protocol (CRF = case report 55 171 227%
forms).........................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Getz, Campo, Kaitin. Variability in Protocol Design Complexity by Phase and Therapeutic Area, DIJ 2011
45(4); 413-420; Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development
fda's vital, complex world-wide public health responsibilities cannot
be accomplished with its existing budget. the agency's mission is ``at
risk.''
FDA is a staff-intensive organization. More than 80 percent of its
budget is devoted to staff-related costs. If the agency budget fails to
grow over the next few years:
--food will be less safe and consumers put at risk,
--drug and device reviews will be slower, conflicting with promises
made to consumers, patients and companies,
--problems with imports and globalization will become more numerous,
and
--critical efforts to modernize the agency and improve its support
for innovation will stall.
FDA has a broad mandate for a relatively small agency. Its
activities are a core function of government and its mission and
responsibilities are increasing. FDA should be a priority and it
deserves exceptional status when appropriations decisions are made.
[This statement was submitted by Kasey Thompson, President,
Alliance for a Stronger FDA.]
______
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 approve sufficient funding to maintain caseload in 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 actively monitor three matters: further changes in sodium
standards for school meal programs, recommendations of the Multiagency
Task Force on commodity procurement required by Section 4205 of the
Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-79), and the National
Commission on Hunger established by Section 743 of Division A of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-76).
ACDA is a non-profit professional trade association, dedicated to
the growth and improvement of USDA's Commodity Food Distribution
Program. ACDA members include: state agencies that distribute USDA-
purchased commodity foods; agricultural organizations; industry;
associate members; recipient agencies, such as schools and soup
kitchens; and allied organizations, such as anti-hunger groups. ACDA
members are responsible for distributing over 1.5 billion pounds of
USDA-purchased commodity foods annually through programs such as
National School Lunch Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program
(TEFAP), Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), Commodity Supplemental
Food Program (CSFP), Charitable Institution Program, and Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR).
itefap food dollars now available for two fiscal years
We previously called upon the subcommittee to make TEFAP food
dollars available for two fiscal years, as was done under ARRA. This
important change was included in the Agricultural Act of 2014, and we
are thankful for it. We also very much appreciate the increase in food
funds from $268,750,000 in fiscal year 2014 to $324,000,000 provided by
the same Act. They are most certainly needed.
If food orders are cancelled by either USDA or vendors for any
reason near the end of the Federal fiscal year, state agencies will now
have the ability to carryover these unanticipated balances to make
responsible decisions and to take maximum advantage of available
resources.
ACDA looks forward to working with USDA for the effective
implementation of this carryover authority.
fully fund tefap administrative funds at $100 million
We continue to urge the subcommittee to fully fund TEFAP
Administrative Funds at $100 million, and believe that the notable
increase in food funds will result in more food, more handling, and
more storage. As a result, operating expenses will most certainly
increase. In our view, so should the funding for these operating
expenses. .
Food banks continue to face increased demands, particularly with
the reduction in SNAP benefits imposed last November. Higher food
prices and tighter food supplies are a significant challenge, so we are
very supportive of the increased food support provided by the
Agricultural Act of 2014. Food banks for the past several years have
found that they have had little choice but to convert food dollars to
administrative expense funds in order to maintain their operations. We
urge the Committee to not force this choice upon food banks that are
experiencing reduced private donations in addition to increased
demands.
funding for the commodity supplemental food program
ACDA supports the President's request for $206,682,000 to maintain
the current caseload 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, and is being converted to an elderly-only program as a
result of Section 4102 of the Agricultural Act of 2014.
monitoring further changes in sodium standards for school meals
As we stated in our 2014 Issue Paper, in 2012, Congress enacted a
provision of law requiring USDA to review and evaluate its rule
reducing the amount of sodium allowable in school meals for the rule's
costs, practicality and scientific support. ACDA supports that
provision, but is concerned that USDA will not issue its findings and
make any resulting changes in the sodium standards in a timely fashion.
The Department has indicated that it will report in 2016, which is 2
years after the information is needed in order for manufacturers and
others in the supply chain to develop, test and market new items before
the next step in the sodium standards goes into effect. School Food
Service authorities have made significant changes in the nutritional
quality of foods served as part of the school lunch and breakfast
program, and are embarking on additional changes in foods served as
part of a la carte meals and sold elsewhere throughout the school. ACDA
is committed to improving the quality of school meals, but believes
that there needs to be sufficient lead time before the required
implementation of any further changes in sodium standards. We urge the
Congress to require that any further changes in sodium standards be
based on sound science, and that sufficient lead time for the
development, testing, and production of new products be provided before
any further changes in sodium standards are required. We also urge the
Appropriations Committee to continue to monitor this important matter
should further action be needed.
interagency panel for evaluation and improvement of the usda foods
program
ACDA applauds the inclusion of Section 4205 of the Agricultural Act
of 2014, establishing a multiagency task force at USDA for continuous
evaluation and improvement of the USDA Foods program. We thank the Food
and Nutrition Service, the Agricultural Marketing Service, Farm
Services Agency, and the Food Safety and Inspection Service for the
efforts they have made to improve procurement operations over the past
few years following meeting with ACDA. We strongly support the USDA
Foods program and want to be sure it works effectively. We are prepared
to work with all of these USDA agencies and our members to develop any
information that USDA may require. We encourage the Committee to
monitor developments as this task force gets underway.
national commission on hunger
ACDA looks forward to the activities of the National Commission on
Hunger established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, and would be
pleased to provide information regarding the operation of commodity-
based food assistance programs. We know that most Commission members
are yet to be appointed and its agenda fully developed. ACDA hopes that
at least one Commission member will have experience with commodity
program operations because this experience can be invaluable to the
Commission's task. ACDA believes that commodities provided to school
food programs, to TEFAP, to CSFP, and to FDPIR are an important link
between producers and recipients. They are cost effective and often
exceed commercial standards, enabling USDA to be a market influencer.
We look forward to continuing to partner with you and USDA in the
delivery of these important food assistance programs.
[This statement was submitted by Wanda Shepherd, President,
American Commodity Distribution Association.]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation
The American Farm Bureau Federation has identified the Renewable
Energy for America Program (REAP) as its program for emphasis and
funding in the fiscal year 2015 agriculture appropriations bill. REAP
offers a combination of grants and guaranteed loans for agricultural
producers to purchase renewable energy systems.
Farm Bureau has identified eight other areas of importance for
funding. They are:
programs that promote animal health
Farm Bureau supports a $2 million increase to the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for voluntary Animal Disease
Traceability (ADT), offset by a $2 million decrease for Avian Influenza
(AI) related programs. The ADT program is essential for animal health,
while avian health has generally improved because of success in
decreasing the global occurrence of AI.
Farm Bureau supports additional funding through the Agricultural
Research Service and National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
for dealing with porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDv). PEDv is an
especially virulent disease for which there is currently no vaccine.
Farm Bureau supports $4.8 million for the Veterinary Medicine Loan
Repayment Program (VMLRP) administered by NIFA. VMLRP veterinarians
ensure animal health and welfare, while protecting the nation's food
supply.
Farm Bureau supports funding $10 million for the Veterinary
Services Grant (VSG) program, which was authorized in the Agricultural
Act of 2014. The VSG program helps food animal veterinarians become
established in rural communities.
Farm Bureau supports funding $15 million for the National Animal
Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN), which was authorized in the
Agriculture Act of 2014. The NAHLN serves as our nation's most vital
early warning system for emerging and foreign animal diseases.
Farm Bureau supports funding $10 million for Section 1433 in the
Agriculture Act of 2014, which establishes a new competitive research
grants mechanism to address critical priorities in food security,
zoonotic disease and stewardship.
Farm Bureau supports $144.5 million for the FDA's 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 to maintain services that expand
agricultural export markets.
--Export development and expansion programs such as the Market Access
Program, Foreign Market Development Program, Emerging Markets
Program and Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program.
These effective programs have resulted in increased demand for
U.S. agriculture and food products abroad.
--Public Law 480 programs which provide foreign food aid by
purchasing U.S. commodities.
--APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine personnel and facilities,
which protect U.S. agriculture from costly pest problems that
enter 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, which oversees the permit,
notification and deregulation process for plant biotechnology
products.
--The U.S. Codex Office, which 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 supports funding for food protection at the Food and
Drug Administration and Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) that is
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 response 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 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.
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.
Farm Bureau opposes any provision which would prohibit FSIS from
inspecting equine processing facilities under the Federal Meat
Inspection Act. Prohibiting the harvest of livestock for reasons
unrelated to food safety or animal welfare sets an extremely dangerous
precedent for banning meat inspection from every species, including
beef, pork, lamb and poultry.
programs that ensure crop protection tools
Farm Bureau supports maintaining the current funding level for the
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, specialty crop
markets.
Farm Bureau supports maintaining funding for the National
Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) in general and specifically
points out the 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, just as their overall effort is
critical to understanding the performance of the sector as a whole.
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 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 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 Community Facility Direct and Guaranteed Loans, which funds the
construction, enlargement or improvement of essential community
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 business.
--Agriculture in the Classroom, which helps students gain greater
awareness of the role of agriculture in the economy and
society.
programs that support wildlife services
Farm Bureau supports maintaining the funding level for APHIS
Wildlife Services programs. Wildlife Services 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.
[This statement was submitted by Bob Stallman, President, American
Farm Bureau Federation.]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Honey Producers Association and
American Beekeeping Federation
Chairman Pryor and Members of the Subcommittee, our names are Randy
Verhoek, President of the American Honey Producers Association (AHPA)
and Tim Tucker, President of the American Beekeeping Federation (ABF).
We are pleased today to submit the following statement for the record
on behalf of our two organizations. Collectively, AHPA and ABF
represent every type of beekeeper across the country, from hobbyists on
up to the very largest commercial honey producers and pollinators. The
purpose of this statement is to bring to your attention the continued
threats faced by American beekeepers and the risk those threats pose to
billions of dollars in U.S. agriculture that rely upon honey bee
pollination services. To address these threats, AHPA and ABF strongly
support the President's fiscal year '15 budget proposal and
respectfully request that the attached funding increases ($25 million
for a NIFA Pollination and Pollinator Health (PPH) Institute; a $4
million increase for ARS honey bee research within crop production
funds; and $2 million increase for NASS honey bee surveys and studies)
and report language are included in the fiscal year '15 annual
appropriations bill.
A 2013 Time Magazine cover story and thousands of other magazines,
newspapers, media outlets and government reports have documented the
scourge of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) and other serious declines in
honey bee health since 2006. Unfortunately, those health challenges
continue to result in drastic bee colony losses year over year. Still
lacking a definitive understanding of the causes after more than 8
years since the onset of CCD, the scientific, agricultural and consumer
communities have grown increasingly concerned that more than $20
billion of pollinator-dependent U.S. agricultural output and a full
one-third of our nation's food supply is at serious risk. Just last
year the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) estimated more
than 35 percent of America's bee colonies did not survive the winter
season, and even greater losses were realized by most commercial
beekeepers, on average 45 percent. While science has yet to determine a
definitive cause, the challenges to honey bee health are clearly multi-
faceted, requiring resource intensive and high priority study. USDA has
done great work in recent years within its resource constraints, but
its research and other programmatic initiatives are woefully
underfunded and in need of exponentially increased investments that are
commensurate with the seriousness of the challenges they face.
As a result, AHPA and ABF strongly support the President's fiscal
year '15 budget proposal and respectfully request that the attached
funding increases and report language are included in the fiscal year
'15 annual appropriations bill. Doing so will ensure that USDA can,
among other things, sufficiently enhance its Federal laboratory and
competitive grant research agenda, strengthen pollinator habitat across
the country, double the number of acres in the Conservation Reserve
Program that are dedicated to pollinator health, and increase funding
for surveys to determine the impacts on pollinator losses, all of which
are necessary next steps in the battle to ensure commercially viable
honey bee populations throughout the United States.
As always, we thank you for your past support of essential honey
bee research and for your understanding of the critical importance that
Federal funding plays in ensuring a healthy honey bee supply ready to
meet the nation's pollination demands.
agricultural research service (ars)
--Funding increase for ARS honeybee research:
--Request of $4 million increase in crop production funding for
additional Federal laboratory research into honey bee
health and Colony Collapse Disorder, including research
into bee health improvement and risk assessment of
pesticides, bee epidemiology, best management practices and
genetics relating to diseases and pests of pollinators.
This high priority increase should be offset by redirecting
funds from ongoing, lower priority research as detailed in
the Administration's fiscal year '15 budget documents.
--ARS Report language:
--``The Committee is aware that pollinators are responsible for the
production of one-third of the Nation's food supply, but
the number of managed honeybee colonies in the United
States has dropped in half since 1940. Because of the
importance of pollinators in the production of the Nation's
food supply and their impact on the stability of our
agricultural economy, the Committee encourages ARS to
increase resources dedicated to protecting the health of
both honeybees and other native bees, including continued
research into colony collapse disorder.''
--ARS Report language:
--``ARS is encouraged to study the feasibility of conducting
Federal honey bee research in California with the support
of a cooperator university that is well situated to conduct
field and other research vital to honey bees and the many
specialty crops that rely on them. ARS is also encouraged
to report on the feasibility of modernizing the honey bee
research laboratory in Baton Rouge, which was included in
the agency's 2012 capital investment strategy report.
Finally, ARS is encouraged to consider investing additional
research dollars with Federal laboratories in the upper
Great Plains where the largest number of honey bee colonies
are available for research during the honey production
season.''
national institutes of food and agriculture (nifa)
--Funding for Pollination and Pollinator Health Institute:
--Request $25 million in funding, available until expended, for a
virtual Pollination and Pollinator Health (PPH) Institute
that will foster industry and researcher collaboration and
utilize input from stakeholders to develop priorities for
addressing biological, environmental and management issues
associated with the wide-scale decline of honey bees and
other pollinators nationwide. No fewer than $5 million of
these funds should be designated for pollinator health and
Colony Collapse Disorder research.
--Report Language:
--``The Committee acknowledges NIFA's continued commitment to
pollinator research under the Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative, and it encourages increased prioritization of
pollinator and CCD research proposals.''
--Report language:
--``The Committee emphasizes the important role of the Specialty
Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) in addressing the critical
needs of the specialty crop industry through research and
extension activities, and it encourages NIFA to prioritize
proposals for and enhance its overall commitment to
identifying and addressing threats to pollinators from
pests and diseases.''
national agricultural statistics service (nass)
--Funding increase for enhanced NASS surveys:
--Request of $2 million in increased funding to enhance its annual
survey of bee keepers to include questions related to
colony losses, pests and parasites, management practices,
crops pollinated and locations served, as well as estimates
of revenues and expenses, which will result in improved
baseline and annual data to determine the extent of CCD, in
addition to providing quantitative information on potential
causal factors, essential to the industry. This increase
should be offset by reductions consistent with those
identified in the Administration's fiscal year '15 budget
documents.
nrcs
--Report language:
--``NRCS, under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP), provided $3 million in technical and financial
assistance for farmers and ranchers to help improve honey
bee health through better conservation practices that will
provide honey bees with nutritious pollen and nectar.
Because access to good forage is an ongoing challenge for
commercial beekeepers, the Committee supports continuing
and expanding this technical and financial assistance
program, and recommends that a significant portion of the
funds should be devoted to facilitating training by expert
researchers and beekeepers of NRCS officials and agents in
pollinator conservation practices.''
[This statement was submitted by Mr. Randy Verhoek, President,
American Honey Producers Association and Mr. Tim Tucker, President,
American Beekeeping Federation]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy
The American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of
America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) urge the
subcommittee to support the following areas of the Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission
areas in fiscal year 2015 budget:
$1.149 billion for the Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
$1.341 billion for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA)
Within NIFA, we specifically support:
$360 million for Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI).
$244 million for Hatch Act formula funding
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, 12,500
Certified Crop Advisers (CCA), and 781 Certified Professional Soil
Scientist (CPSS), as the largest coalition of professionals dedicated
to the agronomic, crop and soil science disciplines in the United
States. We are dedicated to utilizing science to manage our
agricultural system and sustainably produce food, fuel, feed, and fiber
for a rapidly growing global population in the coming decades.
Agriculture and agriculture-related industries contributed $742.6
billion to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2011, a 4.8-percent
share. In 2012, 16.5 million full-and part-time jobs were related to
agriculture--about 9.2 percent of total U.S. employment. However, even
though increased agricultural productivity, arising from innovation and
changes in technology, is the main contributor to economic growth in
U.S. agriculture not all people at all times have to access to enough
food for an active and healthy life. The global number of food-insecure
people is estimated at 707 million in 2013, up 3 million from 2012. By
2023, the number of food-insecure people is projected to increase
nearly 23 percent to 868 million, slightly faster than population
growth. The Nation's economic prosperity and security depend on our
dedication to developing innovative, science-based solutions to meet
our growing agricultural needs and managing efficient food systems.
We must close the innovation deficit if the United States is to
remain the world's innovation leader in agriculture. China continues to
exhibit the world's most dramatic R&D growth at 20.7 percent annually,
compared to the United States at 4.4 percent growth over the same time
period. By 2009, agriculture R&D fell to a historically low 0.035
percent share of the United States economy, a level far below the total
U.S. R&D spending and that which is necessary to meet the critical
challenges facing U.S. agriculture in the 21st century.
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA supports $1.149 billion for Agricultural
Research Service (ARS), USDA's intramural research and development
programs, and applaud their 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 U.S. as a global
leader in food, feed, fiber, and fuel production.
We support $1.341 billion for the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA), USDA's suite of extramural programs whose primary
role is to provide a link between Federal and state research
initiatives through partnerships with educational institutions and
competitive grant programs. Within NIFA, we specifically support:
--Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI): ASA, CSSA, and
SSSA strongly endorse funding AFRI at $360 million, which is
about half of what was originally 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 $244 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.
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.
[This statement was submitted by the Karl E. Anderson, Director of
Government Relations, American Society of Agronomy]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single
life science Society with over 39,000 members, wishes to submit a
statement in support of increased funding in fiscal year 2015 for the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA plays a unique and
essential role in protecting public health by assuring the safety and
efficacy of products accounting for more than 20 percent of all
consumer spending in the United States. FDA science based regulatory
oversight covers the Nation's food supply, human and veterinary drugs,
vaccines and other biological products, medical devices and more.
Market globalization and advances in science and technology have
significantly increased FDA's responsibilities in recent years. FDA's
current strategic priorities include modernizing regulatory science
capabilities and building an integrated global food safety system.
The ASM urges Congress to provide additional funding for the FDA in
fiscal year 2015 because of the magnitude of its new responsibilities
and the need for capacity in critical areas such as food safety.
FDA actions, based on scientific best practices, include consumer
alerts and warnings; production guidances and tools for food safety;
approval of new devices, diagnostics, treatments and vaccines;
strategies to reduce drug resistant microbial pathogens; and safer
veterinary medicines and animal foods. Recent FDA investigations of
foodborne disease outbreaks, using laboratory tests to confirm, linked
illnesses to rice, cheeses and prepackaged salad products. In the past
year, FDA consumer alerts warned against oysters linked to norovirus
illness, nonsterile pharmacological solutions, and carrot and beet
juices possibly contaminated with Clostridium botulinum bacteria.
fda science
FDA has a strategic plan to strengthen regulatory science
including, developing new tools, standards and methods to assess the
safety, efficacy, quality and performance of FDA regulated products.
FDA staff must access the best possible science and technology, as
products move from premarket review to post market surveillance.
Science underlies all the activities of FDA's seven product and
research centers, as well as product regulatory actions. Public health
often depends upon quick and accurate laboratory analyses. The Office
of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) operates 13 high throughput field
laboratories, situated across the United States and Puerto Rico. Lab
results can support field investigations and regulatory decisions,
including the thousands of ORA noncompliance citations issued each year
to firms producing foods, medical devices, drugs, veterinary medicines,
biologics, etc. Other FDA laboratories operated by the Agency's Foods
and Veterinary Medicine Program support the broad responsibilities of
the Centers for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and
Veterinary Medicine (CVM).
The ASM recommends that Congress fund the FDA at the highest level
possible in fiscal year 2015.
FDA scientists conduct research that advances the field of
regulatory science, while protecting public health, including the
following accomplishments in fiscal year 2013:
--An FDA primate study found that FDA licensed acellular pertussis
vaccines are effective in preventing whooping cough, but those
vaccinated may still become infected with the causative
pathogen, Bordetella pertussis bacteria and spread infection to
others. Acellular vaccines using only portions of the bacteria
replaced whole cell pertussis vaccines the 1990s. The study was
initiated to help explain increasing whooping cough rates since
the 1980s.
--A new FDA developed tool will improve security against intentional
food contamination. The software program helps owners and
operators of food facilities customize food defense plans to
minimize risk in their specific facility. Content of the Food
Defense Plan Builder tool is based on FDA guidance documents.
--A handheld FDA developed device to identify counterfeit
antimalarial drugs, the Counterfeit Detection Device (CD-3), is
being field tested in Ghana under a multiagency partnership.
Counterfeit treatments complicate the already difficult global
battle against a killer of more than 660,000 each year and
whose causative pathogens are increasingly resistant to drugs.
Scientists at the FDA's Forensic Chemistry Center developed the
easy to operate tool, which uses light of varying wavelengths
to compare a product with an authentic sample.
food safety
Food items account for about 75 percent of consumer spending on FDA
regulated products. The food industry in the United States contributes
about 20 percent of the Gross National Product, employs about 14
million individuals and has ties to an additional 4 million jobs in
related industries. FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
(CFSAN) generally oversees all domestic and imported food except meat,
poultry and frozen, dried and liquid eggs, which are regulated by the
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
CFSAN regulates an estimated $417 billion worth of domestic food,
$49 billion worth of imported foods and over $60 billion worth of
cosmetics. Several industry and consumer trends have greatly increased
CFSAN responsibilities, including globalization of the food supply and
demand for imported foods, greater numbers of aging people vulnerable
to foodborne illness, new food types and food production methods,
emerging foodborne pathogens and growing concern over intentional food
contamination.
CFSAN responsibility stretches from the point of US entry or
processing to their point of sale. There are more than 377,000 FDA
registered food facilities (approximately 154,000 domestic and 223,000
foreign) that manufacture, process, pack or store food consumed by
humans or animals in the United States, as well as several thousand
cosmetic manufacturers. Possibilities for food contamination are
immeasurable and include every step from preharvest conditions to
processing, packaging, transportation and preparation. CFSAN personnel
routinely examine large numbers of food samples for a long list of
specific contaminants that include toxins and microbial pathogens.
Imported foods give regulators fewer opportunities to oversee the
food supply chain from farm to table. Food enters ports from about 150
different countries and accounts for about 15 percent of the food
supply, including about 50 percent of fresh fruits and 20 percent of
fresh vegetables we consume. In mid-2013, FDA proposed new rules that,
for the first time, would (1) hold importers accountable for verifying
their foreign suppliers implement adequate food safety practices and
(2) raise the standards for third party auditors who inspect as
contractors for food companies and importers. In December, the agency
proposed a rule requiring larger food facilities, in the United States
and abroad, to have a written food defense plan that identifies and
resolves processing steps most vulnerable to intentional contamination.
To protect the food supply, FDA inspects facilities and collects
samples, monitors imports, responds to adverse event reports and
consumer complaints, reviews new food additives, releases regulations
and guidelines to stakeholders, conducts lab research, educates food
producers and the public and if necessary enforces rules and
regulations by recalling or seizing faulty products. These activities
demand up to date knowledge and technology utilized by CFSAN's many
scientific specialists, including microbiologists, molecular
biologists, chemists, toxicologists, food technologists, pathologists,
pharmacologists, nutritionists, epidemiologists, mathematicians,
physicians and veterinarians.
FDA regularly builds strategic partnerships with other public
health institutions. Many of its responsibilities are shared with other
Federal agencies like USDA and CDC. Because large amounts of food and
cosmetics are imported, CFSAN works with international groups like the
World Health Organization and sometimes directly with foreign
governments. Products made and sold entirely within a state are
regulated by that state, but FDA coordinates with state agriculture and
health departments to resolve problems. CFSAN also collaborates with
several academic institutions through its Centers of Excellence
program, funding food safety and nutrition research at universities in
four states.
advances in biomedicine
FDA scientists regularly evaluate biomedical products with
considerable public health and economic value, divided among various
research centers focused on drugs, medical devices or biologics like
vaccines. Examples from the past year show the diversity and medical
significance of FDA's involvement in the biomedicine enterprise:
--A newly implemented FDA plan would phase out the use of medically
important antimicrobials in food animals for food production
purposes to address the public health crisis of rising drug
resistance among microorganisms causing human infectious
diseases.
--An approved rapid diagnostic is the first test that simultaneously
detects tuberculosis bacteria and determines whether they
contain genetic markers for resistance to rifampin, an
important TB antibiotic. Test results are ready in about two
hours versus traditional lab culture methods requiring one to 3
months.
--FDA allowed marketing of the first mass spectrometer system to
automatically identify bacteria and yeasts pathogenic to
humans. It can identify 193 different microorganisms and
perform up to 192 different tests in a single series. Unlike
many test systems that require abundant microbial growth
pretesting, the new system uses a small amount of material with
more rapid results.
--A new drug approved for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection
is the first effective in treating certain types of HCV without
co-administration of interferon. It is the third drug
designated a ``breakthrough therapy'' to receive FDA approval.
Breakthrough therapies are those shown by early clinical
testing to have substantial advantage over available therapies
for serious diseases. An estimated 3.2 million or more people
are thought to be HCV infected.
--The first genotyping test for HCV infected patients identifies the
genotype of HCV infecting a patient. It will help select the
best treatment; HCV genotypes respond differently to available
drugs. It is approved for patients with chronic infections, not
as a screening or diagnostic test.
--FDA approved the first adjuvanted vaccine for H5N1 influenza (bird
flu). Not intended for commercial availability, the vaccine
will be included in the National Stockpile for distribution if
H5N1 develops the capability to spread easily from human to
human.
--A newly approved drug to treat HIV-1 infection contains an
inhibitor that interferes with one of the enzymes necessary for
HIV to multiply. FDA also approved the first rapid HIV test for
simultaneous detection of HIV-1 p24 antigen and antibodies to
both HIV-1 and HIV-2 in patient blood. Detection of the antigen
permits earlier detection than possible with antibodies alone.
--Patients exposed to toxin secreted by botulism causing bacteria can
now receive the first antitoxin that neutralizes all of the
seven toxin serotypes known to cause botulism.
FDA regulatory actions in biomedicine serve the FDA's partnership
in several initiatives, including strategies to halt rising drug
resistance among microbial pathogens, remedy the growing shortage of
new therapeutic drugs or stimulate innovation in personalized medicine.
FDA funding not only subsidizes its own invaluable work, but it also
supports the FDA's collaborations with other public health agencies at
the Federal, state and local levels.
[This statement was submitted by the Public and Scientific Affairs
Board, American Society for Microbiology.]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single
life science society with over 39,000 members, wishes to submit the
following statement in support of increased funding in fiscal year 2015
for research and education programs at the US Department of Agriculture
(USDA). Funding for USDA research invests in sectors important to
public health and the economy, including food safety and food security,
production sustainability, bioenergy sources, plant and animal health
and the environment. The ASM recommends funding USDA agriculture and
science programs to the highest level possible in fiscal year 2015.
Agriculture is important to health and the environment and yields
broad economic benefits. The range of industries related to agriculture
combines for nearly 5 percent of the national gross domestic product
(GDP). In 2012, over 16 million jobs were related to agriculture, over
9 percent of total employment (2.6 million were direct on the farm
employment). In recent years, farm asset values have surged upward,
while agriculture exports have reached historical highs. At a time when
US global competitiveness is being challenged, agriculture exports
embody productivity and innovation in the United States. In fiscal year
2013, exports reached over $140 billion, exceeding the previous record
of $137 billion in fiscal year 2011. The average volume of exports has
increased by nearly four million tons annually over the past 5 years.
Farm exports also support about one million jobs in the country.
USDA productivity statistics show that total farm production more
than doubled between 1948 and 2011, with total output growing at an
average annual rate of 1.49 percent. Almost all growth was due to
increased productivity, much of it fueled by research. Although USDA
research receives considerably less than 5 percent of the USDA budget,
USDA's research support has consistently generated high returns.
usda research
USDA research interconnects issues of global food supply and
security, climate and energy needs, sustainable use of natural
resources, nutrition and childhood obesity, food safety and consumer
education. USDA's Research, Education and Economics Action Plan (REE)
focuses on a number of efforts using the microbiological sciences to
mitigate animal and plant diseases, to reduce foodborne illnesses, to
identify bioenergy sources and to protect the environment. Projects
involve both national and international collaborations and research
results are regularly shared with producers, regulatory agencies,
consumers, industry and commodity organizations.
USDA support for research has significant economic consequences. In
2013, the World Organization for Animal Health upgraded the United
States' risk classification for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)
to negligible risk, expanding market potential (exports of US origin
beef and beef products exceed $5 billion). In December, USDA launched
its new, unified emergency response framework to address citrus
greening disease, also known as Huanglongbing (HLB), a serious threat
to the $3 billion plus citrus industry. This will coordinate HLB
resources, share information and develop operational strategies on a
national scale with multiple stakeholders. USDA science underlies
numerous policy and regulatory actions like food recalls or guidelines
to food processors, exerting significant economic and societal
influence within and beyond the agriculture sector.
USDA supports innovation through its intramural research,
extramural university research grants, financial awards to small
businesses and partnerships with government, academia and industry. The
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) serves as the in house research
agency, with more than 2,200 scientists and a portfolio of about 800
research projects divided among 18 programs. Extramural research is
supported by NIFA, while the Economic Research Service and National
Agricultural Statistics Service contribute interdisciplinary analyses
that guide USDA involvement in agriculture.
When Congress created NIFA in 2008, it emphasized the national
importance of food and agriculture sciences. NIFA supports research,
education and extension programs in the land grant university system,
primarily through competitive grants distributed by NIFA's Agriculture
and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). The ASM urges Congress to fund
AFRI with at least $360 million in fiscal year 2015 as part of a
sustained commitment to agriculture research.
NIFA also administers USDA's Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR) program, which since 1983 has awarded more than 2,000 grants to
US owned small businesses. AFRI supports six priority areas: 1) plant
health and production; 2) animal health and production; 3) food safety,
nutrition and health; 4) renewable energy, natural resources and
environment; 5) agriculture systems and technology and 6) agriculture
economics and rural communities.
food safety and food security
USDA contributes to safeguarding the Nation's food supply and
ensuring food security through adequate wholesome foods. Both ARS and
NIFA programs fund research to reduce the approximately 48 million
foodborne illnesses annually, which cost the economy billions of
dollars each year. Working from field offices, the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) regulates the supply of meat, poultry and egg
products, and is responsible for recalling contaminated foods. The
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) protects the health
of animals and plants that are important to the food supply, public
health and economy. Much of this collective effort targets pathogenic
microorganisms transmitted through food, by identifying microbial
threats, studying basic biology of foodborne pathogens, developing
technologies for contaminant detection and devising intervention and
prevention strategies along the farm to table continuum.
In 2013, USDA researchers reported on food safety studies that
included mapping microbes in cattle feedlot soil, a joint risk
assessment conducted with the Food and Drug Administration to evaluate
listeriosis in retail delis, and an FSIS developed Salmonella Action
Plan that outlines the steps needed against Salmonella bacteria in meat
and poultry products, the most pressing problem FSIS faces. Every year,
there are an estimated 1.3 million illnesses that can be attributed to
Salmonella. In large part through USDA efforts, there has been
progress: Salmonella rates in young chickens have dropped over 75
percent since 2006. The listeriosis study, which is the first of its
kind, concluded that multiple interventions are required to prevent the
often fatal infection by Listeria bacteria and thus reduce the 1,600
illnesses that occur annually.
animal and plant health
Last year, APHIS transferred one million doses of Classical Swine
Fever (CSF) vaccine to Guatemala's Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Safety. ARS scientists also genetically altered the CSF virus toward
developing better vaccines and invented a polymerase chain reaction
(PCR) assay to detect the virus. Although the United States has been
CSF free for over 30 years, these actions recognized the globalization
of agriculture products, as well as the crucial role played by science
and technology in protecting the public. USDA funded research on animal
and plant diseases reported in 2013 includes:
--ARS scientists studying foot and mouth disease (FMD) identified a
DNA sequence in FMD virus that, when removed, permits pathogens
to still multiply in cell culture but the viruses are no longer
virulent, suggesting a new approach to vaccine development.
Researchers also created a new animal cell line used to rapidly
detect FMD virus in field samples, the first capable of
identifying all seven FMD serotypes. They incorporated FMD
receptor genes cloned from cattle tissue into an established
cell line.
--Using a protein interaction reporter (PIR) technology developed by
USDA, for the first time researchers have mapped protein
structures known as virions that help plant viruses move from
plants to insects, through the insects and back into plants.
The new technology could lead to methods disrupting plant
disease transmission by insects.
--More specific testing for Johne's disease in cattle will be
possible with the first discovery of an antibody that binds
only to the causative agent, Mycobacterium avium subspecies
paratuberculosis (MAP). The USDA patented antibody will improve
diagnostic testing for a disease that costs the US dairy
industry more than $220 million each year.
--Plant geneticists developed new disease resistant pea plants to
protect against common root rot of legumes, a fungal disease
caused by Aphanomyces euteiches that can lead to crop losses of
20--100 percent. Others bred a wheat cultivar with innate
resistance to multiple fungal diseases. Of particular concern
is stripe rust (fungus Puccinia striiformis) which has caused
crop losses of up to 40 percent in the Pacific Northwest.
--Adding nickel and phosphite to an existing fungicide spray regimen
improves control of the fungus (Fusicladium effusum) causing
pecan scab, the most destructive disease of pecan in the
southeastern United States. The new information is timely as
the scab fungus is developing resistance to some currently used
fungicides.
--Exposing citrus seedlings to a minimum of 48 hours of temperatures
of 104 to 107 degrees Fahrenheit significantly reduces and
often eliminates HLB infection, according to USDA field trials.
The finding suggests practical measures to slow spread of
citrus greening disease.
biocontrol and bioenergy
In recent years, USDA has intensified its research on renewable
energy, natural resources and environmental issues. Microorganisms have
been particularly useful in studies of bioenergy and biocontrol,
including the following examples:
--The fungus Myrothecium verrucaria, which naturally attacks the weed
Palmer amaranth, is being studied as a possible biocontrol
agent against the weed, which can grow two inches a day and
crowd out commercial crops. The southern weed is acquiring
resistance to glyphosate herbicides, and the ARS reported
research is the first showing the fungus' bioherbicidal action
against a weed species with glyphosate resistance.
--ARS field trials are assessing effectiveness of spraying avocado
trees with foam that contains insect killing fungi against
ambrosia beetles, wood boring pests that threaten the nation's
$322 million avocado crop. Earlier lab studies used bioassays
to genetically confirm the ability of the fungi to infect and
kill the beetles. In those tests, more than 95 percent of
beetles exposed to the fungi died.
--Pathogen carrying house flies are being deliberately infected in
lab studies with salivary gland hypertrophy virus (SGHV),
member of a newly discovered family of viruses called
Hytrosaviridae, which stops flies from reproducing.
Bioenergy strategies commonly rely upon fuels converted from widely
available biomass like grasses, cereal grains or tree cellulose.
Agriculture clearly plays an important role in renewable energy and
USDA's biofuels portfolio includes both intramural and extramural
projects. In November, for example, USDA awarded nearly $10 million to
a consortium of academic, industry and government organizations across
several western states, to evaluate insect killed trees in the Rocky
Mountains as a bioenergy feedstock. Since 1996, pine and spruce bark
beetles have devastated over 42 million acres of western U.S. forests.
The consortium will explore use of scalable, on site thermochemical
conversion technologies to better access the beetle killed trees. At
ARS, molecular biologists recently created a new strain of yeast that
can break down and ferment sugars in corn cobs after xylose has been
extracted for other commercial uses, previously impossible with yeasts
inhibited by processes required. Since 2006, NIFA has collaborated with
the Department of Energy in a joint grant program to improve biomass
for biofuels, intent on increasing plant yield, quality and
adaptability to harsher environments.
The ASM encourages Congress to increase the fiscal year 2015 budget
to the highest amount possible in support of USDA's science, research
and food safety programs. USDA funded research is critical to the
health of our nation's food and agriculture industries as well as the
global economy. 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.
[This statement was submitted by the Public and Scientific Affairs
Board, American Society for Microbiology.]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Nutrition
The American Society for Nutrition (ASN) respectfully requests that
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)/National Institute of Food
and Agriculture/Agriculture and Food Research Initiative receive no
less than $360 million and that the Agricultural Research Service
receive $1.2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2015. ASN has more than 5,000
members working throughout academia, clinical practice, government, and
industry, who conduct research to advance our knowledge and application
of nutrition.
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 Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)
competitive grants program is charged with funding research, education,
and extension and integrated, competitive 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 those benefits, AFRI must be able to advance
fundamental sciences in support of agriculture and coordinate
opportunities to build off of these discoveries.
Therefore, ASN requests that the AFRI competitive grants program
receive at least $360 million in fiscal year 2015. 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 Agricultural Research Service (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. USDA's program of human nutrition research is
housed in six Human Nutrition Research Centers (HNRCs) across the
nation, that link producer and consumer interests and form the core for
building knowledge about food and nutrition. HNRCs conduct unparalleled
human nutrition research on the role of food and dietary components in
human health from conception to advanced old age, and they provide
authoritative, peer-reviewed, science-based evidence that forms the
basis of our Federal nutrition policy and programs. Funding for ARS
supports all of the USDA/HNRCs and ensures that these research
facilities have adequate funding to continue their unique mission of
improving the health of Americans through cutting-edge food, nutrition
and agricultural research.
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 do not reflect the realities of 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.
It is 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. Therefore, ASN requests
that ARS receive at least $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2015. At least
ten million dollars above current funding levels is necessary to ensure
the critical surveillance of the nation's nutritional status and to
continue the many other benefits that ARS provides. With such funding,
the ARS will be able to support its vision of leading America towards a
better future through agricultural research and information.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal
year 2015 appropriations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture/
National Institute of Food and Agriculture/AFRI competitive grants
program and Agricultural Research Service. ASN also supports the Farm
Bill provision that authorizes $200 million in mandatory funding for
the new Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research, which will
stimulate private investment in agricultural research on food safety
and nutrition, plant and animal health, renewable energy, natural
resources and environment, agricultural and food security, technology,
agricultural economics and rural communities.
[This statement was submitted by the Gordon L. Jensen, M.D., Ph.D.
President, American Society for Nutrition]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB)
On behalf of the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB), we
submit this statement for the official record in support of funding for
agricultural research by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
ASPB supports the funding levels of $383 million for USDA's Agriculture
and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) and $1.28 billion for the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS).
This testimony highlights the critical importance of plant biology
research and development to addressing vital issues including:
achieving a sustainable food supply and food security; energy security,
including attaining reduced reliance on all petrochemical products
through game-changing sustainable renewable biomass utilization
approaches; and in protecting our environment.
food, fuel, environment, and health: plant biology research and
america's competitiveness and self-sufficiency
We often take plants for granted, but they are vital to our very
existence, competitiveness, and self-sufficiency. New plant biology
research is now addressing the most compelling issues facing our
society, including: identifying creative and imaginative approaches to
reaching Congress's goals of achieving domestic fuel security/self-
sufficiency; environmental stewardship; sustainable and secure
development of even better foods, feeds, building materials, and a host
of other plant products used in daily life; and improvements in the
health and nutrition of all Americans.
Our bioeconomy and Federal partnership is based upon foundational
plant biology research--the strategic research USDA funds--to make
needed key discoveries. Yet limited funding committed to fundamental
discovery now threatens our national security and leadership. Indeed,
in his 2012 annual letter to the Gates Foundation, 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 and forest plants have on the nation's economy (the agricultural
sector is responsible for one in 12 American jobsespecially true
considering the significant positive impact crop and forest plants have
on the nation's economy (the agricultural sector is responsible for one
in 12 American jobsespecially true considering the significant positive
impact crop and forest plants have on the nation's economy (the
agricultural sector is responsible for one in 12 American jobs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gates, Bill. (Jan 2012). 2012 Annual Letter from Bill Gates.
Retrieved from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter/2012/Pages/
home-en.aspx.
\2\ Vilsack, Tom. (Mar. 9, 2012). Public Comments Before PCAST.
Retrieved from http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/pcast/120309/
globe_show/default_goarchive.cfm?gsid=
1977&type=flv&test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given these concerns and our nation's fiscal situation, the plant
science community has been working toward addressing our nation's
looming challenges--ASPB organized a two-phase Plant Science Research
Summit (held in September 2011 and January 2013). With funding from
USDA, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and
the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Summit brought together
representatives from across the full spectrum of plant science research
to develop a community agenda document. Released in August 2013 as
Unleashing a Decade of Innovation in Plant Science: A Vision for 2015-
2025 (plantsummit.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/
plantsciencedecadalvision10-18-13.pdf), the report puts forth a ten-
year consensus plan to fill critical gaps in our understanding of plant
biology and address the grand challenge of sustainably feeding the
world and providing other useful plant products in the face of
burgeoning population growth, diminishing natural resources, and
climate change.
immediate recommendations
The ASPB membership has extensive expertise and participation in
the academic, industry, and government sectors. Consequently, ASPB is
in an excellent position to articulate the nation's plant science
priorities and standards needed as they relate to agriculture. Our
recommendations are as follows:
--Since the establishment of the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA) and AFRI, interest in USDA research has
increased dramatically--a trend ASPB hopes to see continue in
the future. However, an increased, strategic and focused
investment in competitive funding and its oversight is needed
if the nation is to continue to make ground-breaking
discoveries and accelerate progress toward resolving urgent
national priorities and societal needs. ASPB encourages
Congress to fund AFRI at $383 million in fiscal year 2015,
which, although less than the recently reauthorized level of
$700 million, would provide sound investment in today's fiscal
environment.
--The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) provides vital strategic
research to serve USDA's mission and objectives and as well as
the nation's agricultural sector. The need to bolster and
enhance 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 recommends a congressional
appropriation of $1.28 billion in fiscal year 2015.
--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, we give our most robust
support for AFRI's Foundational Program. This program provides
a basis for outcomes across a wide spectrum, often leading to
groundbreaking developments that cannot be anticipated in
advance. Indeed, it is these discoveries that are the true
engine of success for our bioeconomy.
--Current estimates predict a significant shortfall in the needed
agricultural scientific workforce as the demographics of the
U.S. workforce change.\3\ For example, there is a clear need
for additional training of 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 for 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
(Dec. 2012). Report to the President on Agricultural Preparedness and
the Agricultural Research Enterprise, p. 41. Retrieved from
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
pcast_agriculture_20121207.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Considerable research interest is now focused on the use of plant
biomass for energy production. However, if we are to use crops
and forest resources to their full potential, we must expend
extensive effort to improve our understanding of their
underlying biology and development, their agronomic
performance, and their subsequent processing to meet our goals
and aspirations. Therefore, ASPB calls for additional funding
targeted at efforts to increase the utility and agronomic
performance of bioenergy crops using the best and most
imaginative science and technologies possible.
--With NIFA, USDA is in a strong position to cultivate and expand
interagency relationships, as well as relationships with
private philanthropies, to address grand challenges related to
food, renewable energy and bioproducts, the environment, and
health. ASPB appreciates the need to focus resources in key
priority areas. However, ASPB urges a significant increase in
funding to individual grantees, in addition to putting in place
robust evaluations of group awards and larger multi-
institutional partnerships. Paradigm-shifting discoveries
cannot be predicted through collaborative efforts alone; thus
there is an urgent need to maintain a broad, diverse, and
robust research agenda.
--ASPB encourages some flexibility within NIFA's budget to update and
improve its data management capabilities.
Thank you for your consideration of ASPB's testimony. For more
information about ASPB, please visit us at www.aspb.org.
[This statement was submitted by Tyrone C. Spady, PhD, Director of
Legislative and Public Affairs, American Society of Plant Biologists.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony as you consider
fiscal year 2015 funding priorities. Our testimony addresses programs
and activities administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS), and Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS).
usda-ars-national agricultural library--animal welfare information
center
The Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC) serves as a
clearinghouse, training center, and education resource for those
involved in the use of animals for research, testing, and teaching (as
well as other entities covered by the AWA), and the need and demand for
its services continue to outstrip its resources. AWIC's activities
contribute significantly to science-based decisionmaking in animal
care, as the Center disseminates scientific literature on subjects
including husbandry, handling, and care of animals; personnel training;
animal behavior; improved methodologies; environmental enrichment; pain
control; and zoonotic disease. Its services are vitally important to
the nation's biomedical research enterprise and other regulated
entities because they facilitate compliance with specific requirements
of the Federal animal welfare regulations governing research. We
request that AWIC funding remain level with fiscal year 2014
appropriations.
usda-aphis-animal welfare
APHIS's Animal Welfare activities are critical to the proper
regulation and care of animals protected under the Animal Welfare Act
(AWA), 7 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2131--2159, and the Horse Protection Act
(HPA), 15 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1821--1831. AWI requests that, consistent
with the President's fiscal year 2015 budget proposal, $29 million be
allocated to Animal Welfare activities.
usda-aphis-animal welfare--animal welfare act enforcement--class b
dealers
Nearly fifty years after enactment, the AWA routinely fails both to
reliably protect pet owners and animals from Class B dealers who sell
``random source'' dogs and cats for use in research. These dealers use
deceit and fraud to acquire animals, who are often subjected to
shocking cruelty. A National Academy of Sciences study of the use of
Class B dogs and cats in NIH-funded research acknowledged animal
welfare and enforcement problems and noted ``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.'' \1\ The study concluded that there is no scientific need for
these Class B dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Academy of Sciences Institute for Laboratory Animal
Research, Scientific and Humane Issues in the Use of Random Source Dogs
and Cats in Research (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA must use a costly 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. 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. As a
result of the NAS study, a prohibition on the use of dogs and cats from
random source Class B dealers in all NIH-supported research will be
fully in place in 2015.
Although few of these dealers remain, they are an unjustifiable
drain on USDA resources. But as long as it is possible to issue and
renew Class B licenses, this system will continue to waste taxpayer
money and perpetuate the inhumane treatment of animals. For this
reason, we urge the Subcommittee adopt the following 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 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.
usda-aphis-animal welfare--horse protection act enforcement
The Horse Protection Act of 1970 (HPA) was passed to end soring,
the cruel practice of applying chemical and mechanical irritants the
legs and hooves of horses through to produce an exaggerated gait. Yet
soring, condemned as ``one of the most significant welfare issues
affecting any equine breed or discipline,'' \2\ has continued as
limited funding has hampered enforcement. To enable USDA to better meet
the objectives of the HPA, we request that $893,000 be appropriated for
HPA enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ American Association of Equine Practitioners, Putting the Horse
First: Veterinary Recommendations for Ending the Soring of Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because USDA inspectors are able to attend a mere fraction of
Tennessee Walking Horse shows, monitoring responsibility usually falls
to ``Designated Qualified Persons'' (DQPs), usually industry insiders
with a history of ignoring violations. Reliance on DQPs has been an
abysmal failure. Statistics clearly indicate that the presence of USDA
inspectors at shows results in a far higher rate of noted violations
than occurs when DQPs are present. For instance, USDA has released
foreign substance results gathered through the Horse Protection Program
at horse shows from 2010 through 2013. In 2013, an evaluation of horses
at 17 shows revealed that 62 percent of the samples analyzed were
positive for soring agents.\3\ At the 2013 Tennessee Walking Horse
National Celebration in Shelbyville, Tennessee, 86 of the 128 horses
sampled tested positive for soring agents during USDA inspections, and
at some 2013 shows every single horse examined had been exposed to
soring chemicals.\4\ In 2012, 309 of 478 horses sampled (65 percent)
tested positive for soring agents,5 while in 2011 and 2010, 97 percent
and 86 percent, respectively, had been sored. Data from DQP horse show
inspections in 2009 (the most recent year for which reports are
available) reveal that for 436 shows at which 70,122 inspections were
conducted and 889 violations of any type were cited, only 61, or 0.087
percent of horses inspected, were for prohibited foreign substances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/downloads/
show%20tally%202013%20for%20
web.pdf
\4\ Id.
\5\ USDA-APHIS Horse Protection Program, 2012 Foreign Substance
Results, available athttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/
downloads/show%20tally%202012%20for%20web.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From this comparison, it is clear not only that horse soring
remains a serious problem, but also that there is no substitute for
inspections by USDA personnel to ensure compliance with theWALKING
HORSES (2008).
HPA. The greater the likelihood of a USDA inspection, the greater
the deterrent effect on those who routinely sore their horses.
Enforcement should not be entrusted to individuals with a stake in
maintaining the status quo. USDA cannot make progress in this area
without adequate funding.
usda-aphis-wildlife services--wildlife damage management
We request that APHIS-Wildlife Services' (WS) wildlife damage
management budget be reduced by $13 million and that WS be prohibited
from using funds for lethal wildlife control.
The WS program allocates millions of dollars each year to lethal
wildlife management efforts, relying on methods that are cruel,
ineffective, costly and outdated. WS uses poisons, body-gripping traps,
snares and firearms to indiscriminately kill wildlife--including
endangered species, family pets, and countless non-target animals--
while ignoring humane, cost-efficient approaches to wildlife management
that have been proven effective in the field. These irresponsible
practices threaten not only target and non-target animals, but also the
environment, public safety, national security. Accordingly, we support
the inclusion of language prohibiting the use of USDA funds for WS'
lethal wildlife management activities in the fiscal year 2015
agriculture appropriations bill.
In addition to a restriction on funds for lethal control
activities, we request a reduction in funding from the fiscal year 2014
allocation and USDA's fiscal year 2015 request for WS. The program is
notoriously secretive, and has repeatedly declined to disclose to both
Congress and the public its expenditures on lethal and inhumane
wildlife management practices. Despite this glaring lack of
accountability, WS' budget was increased substantially in fiscal year
2014, and the Administration's budget proposes to maintain that funding
level for fiscal year 2015. Alarmingly, a substantial portion of the
fiscal year 2014 increase was allocated to ``wildlife damage
management,'' the division within WS that is responsible for killing
millions of animals on public and private lands each year. We request
that WS' Wildlife Damage Management budget be reduced by $13 million,
the program's estimated annual expenditure for lethal predator control
practices intended to protect livestock. It should no longer be the
taxpayers' responsibility to subsidize these inhumane, costly practices
to which effective alternatives are readily available.
usda-aphis-wildlife services--wildlife damage management program,
airport safety
APHIS' Airport Wildlife Control Program is intended to address the
control of wildlife at military and civilian airports to reduce the
threat of aircraft striking wildlife, which can lead to aircraft
damage, delays, and accidents. While the media often sensationalize
such incidents, the statistical likelihood of a bird or other wildlife
striking an aircraft is exceedingly small. The chances of a strike
resulting in aircraft destruction, damage, delay, or an accident is
even more remote. Indeed, since 1988, according to the Bird Strike
Committee USA, only slightly more than 250 people worldwide have been
killed as a result of bird strikes on aircraft. This loss of life is
tragic, but when compared to the total number of aircraft passengers
(commercial and civilian) worldwide since 1988, it is obvious that the
risk of dying as a result of a bird strike is infinitesimal. Similarly,
though the Federal Aviation Administration documented 133,000 reported
wildlife strikes (bird strikes comprise approximately 97.5 percent of
all wildlife strikes) at civilian and military airports in the United
States between 1990 and 2011, only an extraordinarily small fraction of
these reported strikes resulted in the damage, delay, or destruction of
an aircraft or injuries or death to passengers. Furthermore, when the
total number of aircraft (private, commercial, and military) takeoffs
and landings are considered over that 21 year period, again the risk of
an aircraft striking wildlife is exceedingly small.
Recognizing that the risk of wildlife strikes to aircraft is real
but not statistically significant, we ask that any funds allocated to
the airport wildlife control program be earmarked only for non-lethal
management programs. There are a variety of non-lethal strategies that
are effective and feasible to address wildlife strikes to aircraft
including fencing, habitat management, runway sweeps using pyrotechnics
and other noise-making devices, trained falcons, removal of standing
water/areas that attract birds/wildlife on airport properties,
modification of airport structures to deter bird use, and public/
airport employee education to avoid behaviors (i.e., feeding birds)
that may attract animals to airports.
usda-aphis-wildlife services--oral rabies vaccination program
APHIS' oral rabies vaccination (ORV) activities, which are carried
out under the National Rabies Management Program, have made significant
progress in controlling the spread of rabies in the United States in an
effective, humane, and cost-effective manner. To ensure that this
success continues, we request that $23.76 million be allocated to the
ORV program for fiscal year 2015, consistent with the program's
estimated fiscal year 2014 expenditures.
usda-aphis-investigative and enforcement services
APHIS' Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES) handles
investigations related to enforcement of the laws and regulations for
APHIS' programs, which involves: collection of evidence; civil and
criminal investigations; and investigations carried out in conjunction
with Federal, state and local enforcement agencies. IES, in
collaboration with USDA's Office of the General Counsel, also handles
stipulations and formal administrative proceedings. We request that IES
funding remain level with fiscal year 2014 appropriations so that the
Service may fulfill its full range of responsibilities, particularly
its increasing HPA and AWA investigatory demands.
usda-fsis--humane methods of slaughter act enforcement
We appreciate the generous support provided by Congress during the
past decade for USDA's enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter
Act (HMSA). However, while enforcement has increased in recent years,
attention to the issue remains uneven among districts.
An analysis of Humane Activities Tracking System (HATS) data
reveals that some USDA districts spend 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 fiscal year 2012, only
2.8 percent of all FSIS verification procedures were performed for
activities related to humane handling and slaughter.
Repeat violators present a major enforcement problem for FSIS. Of
the 285 federally inspected plants that have been suspended for humane
slaughter violations since January 1, 2008, 33 percent have been
suspended more than once within a 1 year period. Moreover, 56 plants
have been suspended on three or more occasions during the past 5 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 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 148
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. 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.
usda-fsis--horse slaughter facility inspections
In 2013, Congress approved language to prevent the use of tax
dollars to fund horse slaughter facility inspections. This language is
critical to protect horses, taxpayers, communities, and public health.
We strongly support the inclusion of this prohibition in the fiscal
year 15 budget.
[This statement was submitted by Christopher J. Heyde, Deputy
Director, Government and Legal Affairs, Animal Welfare Institute.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform
(CCAR)
On behalf of the farmer, rancher, and consumer groups represented
by the Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform (CCAR), I am providing
this testimony to urge the Subcommittee to exclude from the bill any
legislative riders to limit the authority of the Secretary's regulatory
authority under the Packers and Stockyards Act. The member
organizations of CCAR include: the Alabama Contract Poultry Growers
Association, Contract Poultry Growers Association of the Virginias,
Food & Water Watch, Hmong National Development, Inc., National Family
Farm Coalition, National Farmers Union, National Sustainable
Agriculture Coalition, and the Rural Advancement Foundation
International-USA.
The Packers and Stockyards Act is one of the most important Federal
statutes for our nation's livestock and poultry farmers and ranchers.
This is because it prohibits meatpackers and poultry companies from
using their market power to subject farmers and ranchers to
anticompetitive, deceptive, fraudulent and abusive
business practices.
Although the Act was originally enacted in 1921, its importance is
even greater now because of the extent to which these firms have become
vertically integrated, giving them even greater market power and
enabling contracting practices that are even more abusive.
Understanding these trends, the 2008 Farm Bill required USDA to
write regulations to address some of the abusive and anti-competitive
practices that have become common in the livestock and poultry sectors.
Based in part on the Farm Bill requirements, as well as testimony heard
during a series of Agriculture Competition workshops hosted by USDA and
the U.S. Department of Justice, USDA issued a package of proposed rules
in June of 2010 to address many of these concerns.
Since the date these rules were first proposed by USDA's Grain
Inspection Packer and Stockyards Agency (GISPA), the meatpacker and
poultry company groups have launched a full-scale attack on the
regulations and the authority of the Secretary to enforcement many
aspects of the proposed GIPSA rule.
The appropriations process has been one of the venues for those
attacks, and unfortunately, a legislative rider limiting the
Secretary's authorities under the Packer and Stockyards Act has been
included in the agriculture appropriations provisions of each of the
past three fiscal years. While each of the 3 riders has been somewhat
different, they each have significantly undermined important basic
protections for our nation's livestock and poultry farmers and
ranchers.
The GIPSA rider included in the fiscal year 2014 appropriations
cycle (Section 744, Division A, Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2014-H.R. 3547) prohibits the Secretary from taking action on a long
list of commonsense protections for our nation's livestock and poultry
farmers. Here are just some of the protections that the fiscal year
2014 GIPSA rider prohibits:
--Regulations to make it an unfair practice under the Packers and
Stockyards Act for meatpackers and poultry companies to
retaliate against farmers for exercising their rights to free
speech and/or association. This includes providing protection
for farmers who speak out publicly, or to USDA officials or
Members of Congress, about what is taking place on their farms
and with their contracts.
--Regulations to require meatpackers and poultry companies to give
farmers statistical information and data about how their pay is
calculated, if the farmer requests such information.
--Regulations to prohibit meatpackers and poultry companies from
using contracts to force farmers to give up their legal right
to a jury trial to address future disputes with the company.
--Regulations to require meatpackers and poultry companies to submit
to GIPSA sample contracts that they are using in their contract
relationships with farmers, with a clear statement that all
confidential business information and trade secrets are to be
redacted.
--Regulations to clarify that it is an unfair practice under the Act
for poultry companies to require farmers to compete against
each other for performance pay, unless they are given the same
type of birds to raise by the company. This addresses a current
poultry company practice of giving one farmer a breed of bird
that performs poorly in feed conversion efficiency, while
giving another farmer a better-performing breed of bird, and
then requiring both farmers to compete for performance pay
based on feed conversion success of the bird during grow-out
period. This practice is fraudulent because it allows the
companies to make farmers pay the cost for a company decision
to produce some chickens with lower feed conversion attributes.
The farmer has no choice about the quality of chicken placed on
his farm by the poultry company, and is rewarded or penalized
based on factors outside the farmer's control.
--Regulations to clarify that the Packers and Stockyards Act does not
require farmers to show a competitive injury to the entire
industry in order to prove that they have been harmed by unfair
and deceptive trade practices or other anti-competitive
practices of meatpackers or poultry integrators. In other
words, if a poultry company has used fraudulent or deceptive
business practices in a manner that defrauds a poultry grower
out of thousands of dollars of pay, they should not have to
prove that the action by the company is likely to cause a
competitive injury across the entire poultry sector. The
Packers and Stockyards Act was written specifically to provide
protection for individual farmers in their dealings with
meatpackers and poultry companies. In recent years, some courts
have reinterpreted the law to require that farmers prove
competitive injury beyond themselves, and this GIPSA regulation
was intended to clarify the original intent and meaning of the
statute.
It is important to note that during the 2014 Farm Bill debate, the
Farm Bill conferees rejected a strong push by the meatpacker and
poultry companies to include a provision in the final bill that would
have placed great limits on the authority of the Secretary to enforce
many aspects of the Packers and Stockyards Act. Thisprovision, similar
but not identical to the GIPSA rider in recent appropriations bills,
was firmly rejected by the authorizing Committee, and excluded from the
final 2014 Farm Bill.
We strongly urge the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee
to do the same, and reject any legislative riders to limit the
Secretary's authority under the Packers and Stockyards Act.
[This statement was submitted by Steven Etka, Policy Director,
Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Catholic Relief Services
Thank you Chairman Pryor and Ranking Member Blunt for receiving
this testimony. Catholic Relief Services (CRS) requests that fiscal
year (FY) 2015 appropriations provide at minimum $1.55 billion for the
Food for Peace program, $200 million for the McGovern-Dole Food for
Education program, and $80 million for the Local and Regional
Procurement program. Additionally, we request that you direct amounts
of Food for Peace funding to certain specific purposes.
crs and the u.s. catholic church
CRS is the international relief and development agency of the U.S.
Catholic Church. We are one of the largest implementing partners of
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) food aid programs. Our work reaches millions of
poor and vulnerable people in nearly 90 countries. CRS works with
people and communities based on need, without regard to race, creed, or
nationality. CRS often partners with local institutions of the Catholic
Church and other local civil society groups, which are essential to
connecting us with communities that are often inaccessible to others.
the food for peace program
Approximately 842 million people worldwide face hunger on a daily
basis. People facing chronic hunger do not have access to enough food
to maintain healthy and productive lives.
Often times it is the most vulnerable in a community who suffer the
greatest from chronic hunger--women, smallholder farmers, the elderly
and children. Overall, communities that suffer from chronic hunger are
less productive and less stable.
U.S. food aid programs, led by Food for Peace, help to address
chronic hunger. Food for Peace development programs target assistance
to poor and vulnerable communities that improve their long-term food
security. CRS implements Food for Peace development programs in ten
countries. Through these programs beneficiaries are able to grow more
food, earn more to purchase the food they need, and help in
infrastructure improvements that bolster community resilience. A good
of example our Food for Peace funded is in Madagascar.
CRS leads a consortium implementing the Strengthening and Accessing
Livelihood Opportunities for Household Impact (SALOHI) project in
Madagascar. For its part, CRS has implemented a diverse array of
programming to aid farmers and vulnerable populations. Over 58,000
farmers participated in farmer field schools that introduced improved
rice varieties capable of increasing yields. Farmers learn agribusiness
skills to better manage their crops post- harvest leading to greater
profits, and to create better linkages with rice buyers and
agricultural tool suppliers. Food rations are provided in exchange for
community labor to rehabilitate critical infrastructure, such as a dam
that will help irrigate fields. Community health volunteers in the
program have treated 15,000 malnourished children and taught their
parents better nutritional practices to use for lasting impact. And,
over 30,000 people have joined Village Savings and Loan (VSL) programs
that help poor farmers pool, save and manage their money, allowing them
to raise capital to purchase additional land to farm and other needs.
In addition to addressing chronic hunger, Food for Peace programs
assist the millions of people forced into hunger due to sudden and
severe disruptions of their normal lives. Disruptions can take the form
of natural disasters, like Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, or they
could be the result of armed conflict as we have seen in Syria.
While the emergency needs in the Philippines and Syria have been
well documented in the news, we feel additional attention needs to be
place on two other countries in the midst of emergencies--the Central
Africa Republic (CAR) and South Sudan. In both cases, internal violence
in recent months has sparked a significant number of refugees and
Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). In CAR, at the peak of the
violence CRS worked with private resources to help shelter, feed and
care for 40,000 IDPs who had taken refuge at the compound of
Archdiocese of Bossangoa. More than half of the country's 4.5 million
people are in need of assistance, with an estimated 625,000 IDPs in CAR
and many more in neighboring countries as refugees.
In South Sudan, the violence has led to over 800,000 IDPs and over
250,000 refugees in neighboring countries. CRS is currently reaching
more than 12,000 IDP households across South Sudan. CRS had been
implementing a Food for Peace development program in South Sudan when
fighting broke out. The instability has prevented implementation of the
development program in recent months, and CRS has requested a
modification to its agreement in order to use program resources to meet
emergency needs. We have taken such measures in the past, specifically
in Mali in 2013 and in Haiti following the 2010 earthquake, and hope
USAID will be able to accommodate this requested modification as well.
food for peace and mcgovern-dole funding requests
CRS requests that Food for Peace receive at minimum $1.55 billion,
and McGovern-Dole receive at minimum $200 million in the fiscal year
2015 appropriations. These increases over fiscal year 2014 appropriated
amounts are largely to take into account the increased costs for
transportation of food that U.S. food aid programs now have to bear as
a result of the 2013 Murray-Ryan budget deal.
For the last several years transportation costs related to the
overseas shipment of U.S. commodities in food aid programs--Food for
Peace, McGovern-Dole, and Food for Progress--have been partially offset
by reimbursements provided through Transportation Authorization bills.
These reimbursements were reinvested into food aid programs, allowing
them to help more people. However, in last year's budget deal this
reimbursement mechanism was struck from the law. The practical effect
of this change is that food aid programs will now shoulder the full
cost of overseas transportation, which will cut the amount of food that
can be purchased and shipped, and ultimately decrease the number of
people helped compared to present levels.
CRS estimates that lost transportation reimbursements could be
between $50 and $70 million each year. Additionally, CRS estimates the
McGovern-Dole and Food for Progress programs each will lose between $10
and $15 million each year. In order to maintain the reach that food aid
programs had in fiscal year 2014, an increase in funding to Food for
Peace and McGovern- Dole is necessary. We also note that while Food for
Progress is not directly appropriated annually, a $40 million cap on
transportation costs in its authorization gives it no flexibility to
absorb additional transportation costs, and we ask the Subcommittee to
explore ways of addressing the unique impact that the elimination of
reimbursements will have on that program.
We would also like to point out that further increases in food aid
funding may be needed to offset another proposed and troubling change.
On April 1, 2014, the House passed H.R. 4005, the Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, which reauthorizes the Coast Guard
and maritime transportation legislation for 2 years. Our concern with
this bill pertains to Section 318 that requires 75 percent of overseas
food aid shipments to be carried on U.S. flagged vessels, an increase
from the current 50 percent requirement. According to sponsors of the
bill, using U.S. flagged vessels is 30 percent more expensive than
using regular commercial channels. Should H.R. 4005 be enacted into law
with this provision, an even greater portion of food aid funding will
go to overseas transportation instead of providing food and other
assistance to hungry people. As such, higher levels of funding for Food
for Peace and McGovern-Dole will be required to offset these additional
costs and maintain the present reach of food aid programs.
food for peace development program funding
The recently enacted Farm Bill reauthorization maintains a minimum
commitment for Food for Peace development programs of $350 million a
year, but also allows the allocation for such programs to rise to 30
percent of overall Food for Peace funding. Food for Peace development
programs have been appropriated $375 million in each of the last two
fiscal years, and this figure falls within the new funding range set by
the Farm Bill. We hope USAID will consider this as guidance from your
Subcommittee in their allocation of Food for Peace funding in fiscal
year 2015.
monetization in food for peace
The recently enacted Farm Bill also increased the amount of Food
for Peace funding going to its existing cash account, referred to as
202e, and broadened the uses of this funding to include directly paying
for Food for Peace program costs. It is our understanding that this
change was made primarily to reduce the need to monetize food aid
commodities.
Monetization of in-kind food donations is an inefficient means to
raise proceeds to payfor Food for Peace program costs. CRS has
implemented monetization programs for many years and our experience
shows that on average 25 percent of the value in the commodities and
shipping costs are lost in these transactions. It is our goal to reduce
the need to engage in monetization in Food for Peace programs. As
provided in the fiscal year 2014 appropriations, we request that you
direct an additional $35 million in this year's Food for Peace budget
to 202e for the express purpose of replacing monetization. This
additional $35 million in 202e, along with the new flexibilities in the
Farm Bill, should provide enough cash funding to forgo the use of
monetization in all Food for Peace programs except for one (note, the
recently passed Farm Bill retains a requirement that at least 15
percent of Food for Peace development resources be dedicated to
monetization and the one remaining monetization program is projected to
meet this requirement).
local and regional procurement program
CRS requests that the Subcommittee fund the permanent Local and
Regional Procurement (LRP) program, authorized by the recently enacted
Farm Bill, at $80 million for fiscal year 2015. CRS supports the use of
LRP in conjunction with McGovern-Dole programming, as was suggested in
authorizing language. We also recognize that LRP can be useful in other
food assistance programming and should be available to project
implementers to achieve food security objectives. CRS has successfully
implemented projects in Mali and Burkina Faso in conjunction with
McGovern-Dole programs under the auspices of the pilot LRP program
authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill. In these projects, we found that
using locally sourced food helped lay the ground work for
sustainability of the programs, by connecting local farmers to schools,
helping these farmers produce appropriate products for local schools,
and teaching parent-teacher associations to purchase, prepare, and
manage locally grown foods. Food costs were also generally lower, thus
making it more likely that national governments could ultimately assume
the costs of implementing the program. We also note that replacing US
commodities with locally produced ones would require a gradual
transition period and that even after this period, US commodities would
likely be needed since local crop yields can vary significantly from
yearto year and thus additional food would be required to fill these
gaps.
[This statement was submitted by Dr. Carolyn Woo, President and
Chief Executive Officer of Catholic Relief Services.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Center for Science in the Public Interest
2015. My testimony is focused on appropriations for the food
programs at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). We are requesting additional budget
authority above the President's request for FDA's Foods Program of $100
million and for the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) at USDA
of $9.3 million.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is a nonprofit
health advocacy and education organization focused on health and
nutrition, and food safety issues. CSPI is supported principally by the
900,000 subscribers to its Nutrition Action HealthLetter and by
foundation grants. We do not accept government or industry funding.
fda funding levels
FDA is in the third year of implementing the Food Safety
Modernization Act (FSMA). Under FSMA, food producers, importers, and
manufacturers are responsible for the safety of the food they market to
consumers. FDA is required to oversee the food industry's efforts by
issuing risk-based standards for growing, manufacturing, and importing
food, and by conducting compliance inspections. For FSMA implementation
in fiscal year 2015, the President has proposed a $20.6 million
increase in budget authority for the Foods Program at FDA.
Additionally, the President has proposed two new fees to support FSMA
activities. The user fee on imported foods would generate $137.5
million to support border inspections and implementation of FSMA's
import provisions. A registration and inspection user fee would
generate $50.7 million to support inspection programs.
In recent years, Congress has recognized the need to increase food
safety resources at FDA and fund implementation of FSMA. We are
grateful for the Subcommittee's support and urge that it continue to
provide the agency with adequate funding to carry out its critical food
safety mission.
It is our belief that an increase of $20.6 million is inadequate,
and that it is the two fee proposals that outline the true scope of
what the agency needs to fully implement FSMA. However, Congress has
not been receptive to new user fee proposals in prior budgets, and we
do not anticipate that changing in the current budget cycle. We request
that the Subcommittee increase appropriations for food safety,
consistent with its past actions, by at least $90 million for FSMA
implementation above the President's request for fiscal year 2015. The
basis for our request is the May, 2013, report mandated by FSMA in
which the agency estimated its funding will have to increase by $400
million to $450 million above the fiscal year 2012 baseline over 5
years to fully implement FSMA. While not fully funding the needs of the
agency for implementing FSMA, the requested increase puts FDA's funding
level on a closer trajectory to fulfill its responsibilities than would
the President's budget.
In addition, we believe FDA needs at least an additional $10
million to meet critical public health needs in the area of nutrition
policy. FDA has made an initial determination to remove the GRAS
(Generally Recognized as Safe) status for partially hydrogenated oils
(PHO), a decision that would save an estimated 3,000 to 7,000 lives
annually. The comment period on this proposal has just closed and it is
incumbent on FDA to make a final determination in an expeditious manner
and implement an aggressive, but reasonable, timetable for industry to
comply.
The Agency has also recently published a proposed revision of the
Nutrition Facts label that provides for many important improvements
based on today's scientific evidence, including a bolder statement of
calories, removal of unnecessary text, and adding a line for ``added
sugars.'' Again, it is critical that FDA acts with dispatch in
reviewing the comments that this proposal will engender and make a
final decision with a timely implementation schedule. It has been more
than 20 years since the Nutrition Facts panel was established and our
current knowledge of the roles various nutrients play in our health
should be reflected in today's food labeling. Maintaining the momentum
on this issue is essential to reaping the benefits of these changes.
FDA also has much unfinished business in nutrition policy. Front-
of-package (FOP) labeling and the clarity of ingredient labels need to
be addressed. FDA has sponsored consumer research on front-of-package
nutrition labels, and 3 years ago the Institute of Medicine (IOM)
recommended that FDA mandate a uniform national system of FOP labels.
FDA should have seized the opportunity provided by the Nutrition Facts
panel changes to address the confusing signals sent by many food
packages on the front of the label, which every consumer sees. Yet the
primary display panels on packages are often jumbles of messages about
healthy aspects of food that are misleading when the food is considered
as a whole. Also, ingredient labels on many packages remain painfully
difficult to read. FDA should have sufficient resources to address this
important outstanding business on labeling.
Moreover, more definitive action on sodium is required. Four years
ago, the IOM published a landmark report laying out a road map for FDA
to reduce sodium in the food supply. The Dietary Guidelines for
Americans recommends that people over 50, African-Americans, and people
with hypertension--or more than half of all adults--should limit
themselves to 1,500 milligrams of sodium per day. Americans average
about 4,000 milligrams of sodium per day. That higher level is causing
about 100,000 more deaths per year from heart attacks and strokes than
would occur if people were consuming 2,000 milligrams per day. While
the revisions to the Nutrition Facts panel include a very modest
reduction in the daily value for sodium from 2,400 mg to 2,300 mg, much
more is needed, especially the publication of a guidance for industry
that would provide targets for lowering sodium.
In addition, FDA has yet to publish the final rule for calorie
labeling in chain restaurants, where Americans consume one-third of
meals and caloric intake is higher than at home. FDA must not let these
matters be further delayed, and for this kind of forward movement on
public health, with the potential for saving tens of thousands of lives
and tens of billions of dollars annually, the agency requires
resources. These critical public health needs require additional
funding so that FDA has the scientific base and staff resources to act
today, not tomorrow or the day after.
usda funding levels
The President's budget proposes cutting FSIS by $9.3 million in
fiscal year 2015. This is premised upon the agency achieving savings
from implementation of the proposed poultry slaughter inspection
program. Since FSIS has not finalized a rule and has not announced a
date for doing so, this cut seems to put the cart before the horse. The
Subcommittee should reject this premature cut until FSIS can
demonstrate that its program is effective at protecting public health
and can achieve the projected savings. We request the Subcommittee fund
discretionary programs in FSIS at the fiscal year 2014 level of $1,011
million.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the
fiscal year 2015 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.
[This statement was submitted by Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D.,
Executive Director, Center for Science in the Public Interest.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
(CAWCD)
On behalf of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
(CAWCD), I am writing to ask that you include at least $17.5 million
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Environmental Quality
Incentive Program (EQIP) for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program in the fiscal year 2015 Appropriation bill. Funding for the
salinity control program will help protect the water quality of the
Colorado River that is used by approximately 40 million people for
municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate approximately 4
million acres in the United States.
CAWCD manages the Central Arizona Project (CAP), a multi-purpose
water resource development and management project that delivers
Colorado River water into central and southern Arizona. The largest
supplier of renewable water in Arizona, CAP delivers an average of more
than 1.5 million acre-feet of Arizona's 2.8 million acre-foot Colorado
River entitlement each year to municipal and industrial users,
agricultural irrigation districts, and Indian communities.
Our goal at CAP is to provide an affordable, reliable and
sustainable supply of Colorado River water to a service area that
includes more than 80 percent of Arizona's population.
These renewable water supplies are critical to Arizona's economy
and to the economies of Native American communities throughout the
state. Nearly 90 percent of economic activity in the State of Arizona
occurs within CAP's service area. CAP also helps the State of Arizona
meet its water management and regulatory objectives of reducing
groundwater use and ensuring availability of groundwater as a
supplemental water supply during future droughts.
negative impacts of concentrated salts:
Natural and man-induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates
environmental and economic damages. EPA has identified that more than
60 percent of the salt load of the Colorado River comes from natural
sources. Additionally, human activity, principally irrigation, adds to
the salt load of the Colorado River. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) has estimated damages at about $376 million per year.
Modeling by Reclamation indicates that damages will rise to
approximately $577 million per year by the year 2030 without
continuation of the Program. These damages include:
--A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
sector;
--Increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine
disposal for recycling water in the municipal sector;
--An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial 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 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;
--A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector; and
--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.
Funding for salinity control will prevent the water quality of the
Colorado River from further degradation and significant increases in
economic damages to municipal, industrial and irrigation users.
history of the usda's colorado river basin salinity control program:
Recognizing the rapidly increasing salinity concentration in the
Lower Colorado River and its impact on water users, Arizona joined with
the other Colorado River Basin States in 1973 and organized the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum). In 1974, the Forum
worked with Congress in the passage of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act (Act) to offset increased damages caused by
continued development and use of the waters of the Colorado River.
Congress authorized a salinity control program (Program) for the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through an amendment of
the 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
EQIP. Since the enactment of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
(FSRIA) in 2002, there have been, for the first time in a number of
years, opportunities to adequately fund the Program within 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. With the passage of the Agricultural Act of 2014 the
authorities for USDA to implement salinity control activities in the
Colorado River Basin were continued.
The Program, as set forth in the Act, is to benefit Lower Basin
water users hundreds of miles downstream from the sources of salinity
in the Upper Basin. The salinity of Colorado River waters increases
from about 50 mg/L at its headwaters to more than 700 mg/L in the Lower
Basin. There are very significant economic damages caused downstream by
high salt levels in the water. EQIP is used to improve upstream
irrigation efficiencies which in turn reduce leaching of salts to the
Colorado River. There are also local benefits in the Upper Colorado
River Basin from the Program in the form of soil and environmental
benefits, improved agricultural production, improved water
efficiencies, lower fertilizer and labor costs, and water distribution
and infrastructure improvements. The mix of funding under EQIP, cost
sharing from the Basin States and efforts, and cost sharing brought
forward by local producers have created a most remarkable and
successful partnership.
The threat of salinity continues to be a concern in both the United
States and Mexico. In 2012, a five-year agreement, known as Minute 319,
was signed between the U.S. and Mexico to guide future management of
the Colorado River. Among the key issues addressed in Minute 319
included an agreement to maintain salinity standards. The CAWCD and
other key water providers are committed to meeting these goals.
conclusion:
Implementation of salinity control practices through EQIP has
proven to be a very cost-effective method of controlling the salinity
of the Colorado River. CAWCD urges the subcommittee to include at least
$17.5 million from the USDA's Environmental Quality Incentive Program
for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program in the fiscal
year 2015 Appropriation bill. 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.
[This statement was submitted by David V. Modeer, General Manager,
Central Arizona Project.]
______
Letter From the Choose Clean Water
March 28, 2014
Hon. Mark Pryor,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies,
Washington, D.C. 20510
Hon. Roy Blunt,
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies,
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chairman Pryor and Ranking Member Blunt: As members of the
Choose Clean Water Coalition we are requesting continued support for
clean water in the Chesapeake Bay watershed through the conservation
programs of the new Farm Bill (the Agricultural Act of 2014). There are
87,000 farms in the Chesapeake region, and those that are well run
protect their water resources and add much to our landscape,
environment and economy. We want to ensure that these responsible farms
and farmers remain economically viable. These conservation programs are
critical for maintaining and restoring clean water to the rivers and
streams throughout the Chesapeake Bay region, and for the Bay itself.
These programs are also essential for the agricultural sector to meet
requirements under the Clean Water Act.
We urge you to oppose cuts to mandatory agricultural conservation
programs in fiscal year 2015. The recent enactment of a new Farm Bill
sets us on a new path toward clean water in our region, but only if key
conservation programs are funded as Congress intended.
At least 11 million people in this region get their drinking water
directly from the rivers and streams that flow through the cities,
towns and farms throughout our region. The quality of this water is
critical to both human health and to the regional economy. The efforts
to clean the Chesapeake began a generation ago under President Reagan
in 1983. In his 1984 State of the Union speech President Reagan said,
``Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative
challenge, it's common sense.''
In order to follow a common sense path to maintain economically
viable well run farms and to have healthy local water and a restored
Chesapeake Bay, which is critical for our regional economy, we request
full fundingfor the authorized amount in the Farm Bill for the
following programs in fiscal year 2015:
u.s. department of agriculture--natural resources conservation service
(nrcs)
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)--$1.6 billion
This national Farm Bill conservation program provides a formula
based allocation to farmers by state and is used for various
conservation practices, such as nutrient management, cover crops,
conservation tillage, fencing animals out of streams, restoring
vegetative buffers along streams, etc., that are critical to protecting
and restoring water quality throughout the region and the nation. EQIP
has been essential over the years in this region for farmers to
implement and maintain practices that enhance their operations and
benefit the local environment. We support full funding for the $1.6
billion for which this program is authorized in the new Farm Bill. This
funding level is also critical to the success of the Regional
Conservation Partnership Program that is allocated 7 percent of EQIP
funds.
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)--$100 million
We support the $100 million authorized level of this new Farm Bill
program, as well as the President's $100 million budget request for
fiscal year 2015. A number of former Farm Bill programs, including the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative, were ended and incorporated into
the new RCPP. In order to continue the success that our region's
farmers have had in reducing their impacts to local waters and the Bay
over the past 5 years we strongly urge you to fully fund the RCPP in
fiscal year 2015 and beyond. This new program is critical to continuing
the march toward clean water throughout our region.
Thank you for your consideration on this very important request to
maintain funding for these programs which are critical to both our
agricultural community and for clean water throughout the mid-Atlantic
region.
Sincerely,
1000 Friends of Maryland
American Rivers
Anacostia Watershed Society Audubon Naturalist Society Blue Water
Baltimore Chapman Forest Foundation
Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future
Clean Water Action Conservation Pennsylvania Delaware Nature Society
Elk Creeks Watershed Association
Friends of Dyke Marsh
Friends of Frederick County
Friends of Lower Beaverdam Creek
IFriends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River
IFriends of the Rappahannock Friends of the Rivers of Virginia
Interfaith Partners for the Chesapeake James River Association
Loudoun Wildlife Conservancy
Maryland Academy of Sciences at the Maryland Science Center
Maryland Conservation Council
Maryland League of Conservation Voters Mattawoman Watershed Society
National Parks Conservation Association National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nature Abounds
New York State Council Trout Unlimited Pennsylvania Council of Churches
Pennsylvania Council of Trout Unlimited Piedmont Environmental Council
Potomac Conservancy
Rivanna Conservation Society Rock Creek Conservancy Sassafras River
Association
Savage River Watershed Association Shenandoah Riverkeeper Shenandoah
Valley Network Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna
St. Mary's River Watershed Association Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership Trout Unlimited
Trout Unlimited Mid-?Atlantic Council Upper Susquehanna Coalition
Virginia Conservation Network
Virginia League of Conservation Voters
Waterkeepers Chesapeake
West Virginia Rivers Coalition
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
Waters from the Colorado River are used by approximately 40 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 (Reclamation) has
estimated the currently quantifiable damages at about $376 million per
year. Modeling by Reclamation indicates that the quantifiable damages
will rise to approximately $577 million per year by the year 2030
without continuation of the Program. 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. The USDA portion of the Program, as authorized
by Congress and funded and administered by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) under the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP), is an essential part of the overall effort. A funding
level of $17 million to $18 million annually is required to prevent
further degradation of the quality of the Colorado River and increased
downstream economic damages.
In enacting the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974,
Congress directed that the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program should be implemented in the most cost-effective way. The
Program is currently funded under EQIP through NRCS and under
Reclamation's Basinwide Program. The
Act requires that the basin states cost share 30 percent of the
overall effort. Historically, recognizing that agricultural on-farm
improvements were some of the most cost-effective strategies, Congress
authorized a program for the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) through amendment of the 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. With the
passage of the Agricultural Act of 2014 the authorities for USDA to
implement salinity control activities in the Colorado River Basin were
continued.
The Program, as set forth in the Act, is to benefit Lower Basin
water users hundreds of miles downstream from the sources of salinity
in the Upper Basin. The salinity of Colorado River waters increases
from about 50 mg/L at its headwaters to more than 700 mg/L in the Lower
Basin. There are very significant economic damages caused downstream by
high salt levels in the water. EQIP is used to improve upstream
irrigation efficiencies which in turn reduce leaching of salts to the
Colorado River. There are also local benefits in the Upper Colorado
River Basin from the Program in the form of soil and environmental
benefits, improved agricultural production, improved water
efficiencies, lower fertilizer and labor costs, and water distribution
and infrastructure improvements. Local producers submit cost-effective
applications under EQIP in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and offer to cost
share in the acquisition of new irrigation equipment. The mix of
funding under EQIP, cost share from the Basin States and efforts and
cost share brought forward by local producers has created a most
remarkable and successful partnership.
After longstanding urgings from the states and directives from
Congress, NRCS has recognized 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 Colorado River's headwater in
the Rocky Mountains to the Colorado River's terminus in the Gulf of
California in Mexico. Each year the NRCS State Conservationists for
Colorado, Utah and Wyoming prepare a three-year funding plan for the
salinity efforts under EQIP. The Forum supports this funding plan which
recognizes the need for $17.5M in fiscal year 2015. This includes the
moneys needed for both on-farm and technical assistance. State and
local cost-sharing is triggered by the Federal appropriation. The Forum
appreciates the efforts of NRCS leadership and the support of this
Subcommittee in implementing the Program.
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 salinity concentrations in the water will be
more widespread in the United States and Mexico.
Concentration of salt in the Colorado River causes approximately
$376 million in quantified damages and significantly more in
unquantified damages in the United States and results in poor water
quality for United States users. Damages occur from:
--a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
sector,
--increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine
disposal for recycling water in the municipal 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,
--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, and
--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.
Over the years, NRCS personnel have developed a great working
relationship with farmers within the Colorado River 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. Lastly, 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
Colorado River from further degradation and significantly increased
economic damages to municipal, industrial and irrigation users.
______
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
Committee's Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2015. In
order to encourage efficient review of drugs for cystic fibrosis and
other rare diseases, we urge the Committee to prioritize the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) in fiscal year 2015 by providing the highest
possible funding level for this essential agency. We encourage special
consideration and support for the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (CDER), its Office of New Drugs (OND), and the Office of
Orphan Products Development (OOPD).
The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation is appreciative of the fiscal year
2014 funding level the Committee provided the Food and Drug
Administration, an increase of $91 million over the fiscal year 2013
enacted level. However, as the agency's responsibilities continue to
grow and we enter an unprecedented era of innovation in drug
development for rare diseases, even more needs to be done.
Cystic fibrosis is a rare genetic disease that causes the body to
produce abnormally thick mucus that clogs the lungs and other bodily
systems, resulting in life-threatening infections and other
complications. There are nearly 2,000 mutations of the CF gene that can
impact those with CF. In recent years, genetically-targeted treatments
have become a reality for cystic fibrosis patients with particular CF
mutations, changing the face of this chronic disease for a small
portion people of with CF. Now, therapies that target other mutations
are moving through the pipeline.
With these groundbreaking advancements, clinical trial design
issues have been identified by cystic fibrosis experts that may arise
in review of future treatments. For example, researchers and clinicians
are concerned about the challenges inherent in executing placebo-
controlled trials for genetically-targeted treatments when successful,
genetically-targeted drugs are already approved and on the market.
Outcome measures for young children and infants and the need for
flexibility for the use of markers reasonably likely to predict
clinical outcome are also concerns. How to accelerate classification of
biomarkers, test combinations of drugs in populations that might
include patients with several different CF mutations, develop and test
single and combination therapies in n of 1 trials (those that consist
of a single patient), and develop and implement Patient Reported
Outcomes (PROs) are all questions that need to be considered as we
enter this era of personalized medicine.
The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and the patients, families,
researchers, and clinicians we represent commend the FDA for its
flexible and patient-centered approach to drug development. The
agency's flexible attitude toward new drug review has produced
significant treatment advances for those with CF, and demonstrates how
the funding the agency receives is used effectively and efficiently.
We also note that FDA has moved expeditiously to implement a number
of important provisions of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and
Innovation Act (FDASIA), including but not limited to the breakthrough
therapy designation, and to convene public meetings to consider
important questions related to patient-focused drug development in a
number of different therapeutic areas.
However, it is important that the FDA use the resources provided by
this Committee to make the most of all tools at its disposal as it
considers innovative new treatments and confronts the challenges ahead.
As the Committee considers next year's funding for the FDA, the CF
Foundation encourages the Committee to direct the Food and Drug
Administration to fully implement Section 903 of FDASIA, Consultation
with External Experts on Rare Diseases, Targeted Therapies, and Genetic
Targeting of Treatments. Signed into law nearly 2 years ago, we
encourage the FDA to utilize this provision to the fullest extent
possible.
Section 903 requires the agency to ensure that opportunities exist
for FDA consultation with rare disease experts. Specifically, it
states, ``The Secretary shall develop and maintain a list of external
experts who, because of their special expertise, are qualified to
provide advice on rare disease issues . . . The Secretary may, when
appropriate to address a specific regulatory question, consult such
external experts on issues related to the review of new drugs and
biological products for rare diseases and drugs and biological products
that are genetically targeted.''
Potential topics of consultation are encompassed in the law. They
include rare diseases and their severity, the unmet medical need
associated with rare diseases, the willingness and ability of
individuals with a rare disease to participate in clinical trials,
assessment of the benefits and risks of therapies to treat rare
diseases, the general design of clinical trials for rare disease
populations, and the demographics and the clinical description of
patient populations.
The CF Foundation strongly supported the inclusion of section 903
in the user fee reauthorization. This type of case-by-case consultation
with external experts, initiated by FDA reviewers, is different from
other provisions of FDASIA. Section 903 calls for proactive outreach to
rare disease experts when ``such consultation is necessary because the
Secretary lacks the specific scientific, medical or technical expertise
necessary for the performance of the Secretary's regulatory
responsibilities.'' This outreach is on a case-by-case basis on a
particular issue. It is not tied to drug sponsors, and it is not part
of a pre-scheduled public meeting or workshop. There are 7,000 rare
diseases, each with their own demographics, consideration of unmet
medical need and disease.
[This statement was submitted by Robert J. Beall, Ph.D., President
and CEO, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology
The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
(FASEB) respectfullyrequests a fiscal year (FY) 2015 appropriation of a
minimum of $335 million for the Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative (AFRI) within the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture. We strongly urge a sustained commitment to investment in
the critical field of agriculture research, with an ultimate target of
the authorized funding level.
FASEB, a federation of 26 scientific societies, represents more
than 115,000 life scientists and engineers, making it the largest
coalition of biomedical research associations in the United States. Our
mission is to advance health and welfare by promoting progress and
education in biological and biomedical sciences.
AFRI is the preeminent competitive grant program of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), facilitating collaborative,
interdisciplinary research at universities and private research
institutions across the country to address significant societal
challenges such as food safety and security and the need for
sustainable agriculture practices. Research funded through AFRI
generates knowledge in the food, nutrition, and agricultural sciences
and translates these discoveries into practice. AFRI also encourages
young scientists to pursue careers in agricultural research by
providing funding for more than 1,500 of the nation's most promising
pre- and postdoctoral scholars in agricultural, nutrition, and food
sciences.
Examples of recent USDA-funded research include:
--New Environmentally Friendly Products: Wood adhesive, used to make
plywood and various other composite materials, is traditionally
a noxious, petroleum based compound. Researchers at the
University of Oregon successfully developed a nontoxic and
environmentally friendly alternative made from soybean flour.
Using the new wood adhesive reduced hazardous air pollutant
emissions at production facilities by 90 percent.
--Increasing Food Safety: AFRI-funded researchers developed a new
two-step process to eliminate E. coli bacteria contamination
from spinach. The process involves using ultrasound waves and a
chemical washing treatment to eliminate 99.99 percent of
bacterial presence from fresh spinach. Industry is exploring
ways to broaden the use of this process for other fresh fruits
and vegetables to reduce contamination and increase consumer
safety.
--Improving the Health of Honeybees: Honeybees are an integral part
of the agriculture system and pollinate over 130 fruit and
vegetable crops in the U.S. Over the past several years, the
honeybee population has been declining due to Colony Collapse
Disorder (CCD), which has tripled the cost of maintaining
beehives. An AFRI-funded research team identified the varroa
mite as a key cause of CCD, helping honeybee breeders to choose
variants that protect against the disorder.
--More Efficient and Effective use of Fungicides: Delivering safe,
healthy fruit to market is the goal of every grower.
Traditionally, growers must estimate the best time to apply
fungicide and how much to use to protect their plants from
fungal rot. AFRI-funded researchers developed a web-based
prediction tool to help growers determine how much fungicide to
use and when to apply it. The system has helped growers reduce
fungicide use by 50 percent, improving fruit safety for
consumers and increasing profits for farmers.
realizing the potential of agricultural research
With an increasing world population, demand for innovative food and
agricultural products has never been greater. Agricultural, nutrition,
and food scientists are developing more abundant, nutritious food,
creating new biofuel materials, and designing more sustainable
agriculture practices. AFRI research and education programs support the
translation of cutting edge science into solutions for some of the
greatest challenges facing our nation.
Agricultural research directly benefits all sectors of society and
every geographic region of the nation. The food, nutrition, and
agriculture industries rely on Federal funding for basic scientific
research that leads to the development of innovative products that
industry can bring to market, as well as programs that train the next
generation of agricultural researchers. With rising challenges from
foreign competitors and growing demand for agricultural products, AFRI
is significantly underfunded. AFRI's budget has not increased since it
was established in 2008. FASEB recommends a minimum of $335 million for
AFRI in fiscal year 2015 as part of a sustained commitment to
investment in the critical field of agricultural research, with an
ultimate target of the authorized level of $700 million.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer FASEB's support and
recommendations for AFRI.
[This statement was submitted by Meghan McCabe, Legislative Affairs
Analyst, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
On behalf of millions of sportsmen conservationists, livestock
producers, and state and private academic research institutions, we ask
your help in the end-game strategy for controlling zoonotic diseases in
the United States, particularly bovine brucellosis and bovine
tuberculosis. These diseases are transmissible between livestock and
wildlife--and under certain circumstances, humans. Despite nationwide
efforts to eradicate zoonotic diseases in livestock, both bovine
brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis remain active in isolated wildlife
reservoirs in the West and Midwest. To bring this decades-long campaign
to a long-term resolution, we ask the Subcommittee to include language
encouraging the use of competitive grants for zoonotic disease research
under the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Animal
Health and Disease Research Initiative.
The Agricultural Act of 2014 recognized the need for this research
by making the development of improved surveillance and vaccine systems
a priority research area under the Competitive, Special, and Facilities
Research Grant Act. If funded, researchers nationwide using matching
investments and collaboration among state and private research
institutions could compete for grants to address bovine brucellosis and
bovine tuberculosis. Many partnerships have already been built in this
wide network, representing significant non-Federal investment, which
includes recent upgrades in laboratories to higher standards of safety
for handling the bacteria that cause these diseases. The persistence of
these diseases is an obstacle for wildlife conservation and livestock
health. The current strategy of responding to outbreaks by slaughtering
or depopulating infected herds and populations sacrifices economic and
social values. Depopulation as a management tool necessarily involves
the taking of healthy animals along with the sick and deprives
economies and communities of benefits from livestock industry and
wildlife recreation. False-positive detections using current tests are
also a problem, costing ranchers substantial sums out of profit.
Financial pressure on livestock operations is also a risk to
conservation as these businesses keep America's rural lands as open
spaces under good stewardship. When ranches fail and land is developed,
wildlife habitat is lost.
The use of competitive grants under the existing Animal Health and
Disease ResearchInitiative ensures that Federal resources to combat
this animal health problem are used effectively. We seek to focus the
combined efforts of many who are already struggling with the problem
diseases in livestock and wildlife. This approach is designed for clear
accountability of measurable results.
Thank you for your consideration.
[This statement was submitted by Greg Schildwachter, Watershed
Results.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of Agricultural Research
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 2015 funding support for research programs at
Beltsville.
Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center--the
nation's premier agricultural research center that includes the
Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center and the research operations
of the U.S. National Arboretum--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. The
location of BARC in close proximity to many other Federal research
agencies as well as the University of Maryland allows for significant
joint research activities and the leveraging of resources.
Priorities in the President's fiscal year 2015 Budget Request--Now,
Mr. Chairman, we turn to key research areas that were highlighted in
the President's proposed fiscal year 2015 budget. We were pleased to
see that the fiscal year 2015 budget includes increases for crop
breeding and protection; animal breeding and protection; enhanced
environmental stewardship; food safety; and human nutrition. Obviously,
these are areas of great importance 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.
In summation, we would highlight these spheres of excellence:
Crop Breeding and Protection: Beltsville scientists have an
extensive record of ongoing research relating to protecting crops from
pests and emerging pathogens. Beltsville's Bee Research Laboratory is
at the forefront of efforts to determine the cause of colony collapse
disorder that is devastating the bee industry that is critical for the
pollination of many crops. 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 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. At
BARC, research on the breeding of crops and plants has led to improved
varieties of vegetables, nursery stock, fruits and even turf grasses.
Animal Breeding and Protection: Beltsville conducts extensive
research on animal production and animal health. The U.S. Poultry
industry depends on Beltsville scientists to develop new and more
effective vaccines and immunological approaches to prevent losses to
flocks. Animal scientists at BARC have been using cutting-edge genomic
approaches to increase the feed efficiency of animals used for food and
to improve disease resistance in farm animals. Many of the emerging
diseases affecting humans are zoonotic in that they arise first in
animals. By understanding these diseases in animals and how they might
be controlled, BARC scientists are helping human as well as animal
health. BARC has worked with the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History
to ensure the continued curation of the National Animal Parasite
collection and with the dairy industry to transfer the technology to
enhance milk yield in dairy cows. Both of these activities allow for
BARC scientists to continue to meet the needs of commodity groups and
producers and to leverage its resources to expand research activities.
Enhanced Environmental Stewardship: BARC scientists are at the
forefront of research aimed at development of climate resilient land,
crop, grazing and livestock production systems. Beltsville became
actively engaged in climate change research long before climate change
became a topic of intense media interest; scientists have been able to
increase our 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. The facilities at BARC to replicate
environmental changes and to model changes in plant production are
truly unique. Since BARC is an actively farmed facility that is close
to an urban center and drains into the Chesapeake Bay, it is
significantly involved in research on agriculture at the ag-urban
interface and for controlling agricultural impacts on the environment.
Food Safety: BARC houses the largest food safety laboratory in the
Agricultural Research Service. It is highly regarded for its research
on improving the safety of animal products by improving pathogen
reduction on the farm. This is a significant issue as this research is
able to reduce the use of antibiotics in agriculture and greatly reduce
the development of antibiotic resistant organisms in the environment
and in humans. Beltsville scientists have been and continue to be
involved in research aimed at keeping pathogens out of our fruits and
vegetables and to develop effective and efficient ways of monitoring
contamination of these important commodities.
Human Nutrition: The Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center
(BHNRC) is the nation's largest, oldest and most comprehensive Federal
human nutrition research center. Unique activities at BHNRC include
conducting 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. Human
feeding studies conducted by BHNRC scientists were the first ever to
demonstrate the harmful effects of trans fats in the human diet and
they have worked with the food industry develop alternatives for their
removal from the food supply.
Food Quality Laboratory: The Laboratory concerned with maintaining
and enhancing fruit and vegetable food quality is to be redirected, but
the research funding is to remain at the Center. We are supportive of
keeping the funding for these projects concerning food quality at the
Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.
You can see that the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center
conducts impactful research in those areas that are a priority in the
President's fiscal year 2015 budget. It is perhaps one of the real
strengths of the Center that research is conducted in each of these
areas thereby allowing for unique multidisciplinary activities that cut
across each of these priorities. It is not uncommon at BARC to see
plant scientists working side by side with animal scientists. The
Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center hired a climate change
scientist over 10 years ago. The research conducted at BARC not only
adds to our scientific knowledge but truly improves the quality of life
for all Americans and significantly impacts American agriculture.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call to your attention an
urgent facilities need that is highlighted in the President's fiscal
year 2015 budget. 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
307A--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 affirm that Beltsville urgently needs a renovated
Building 307A for adequate, high quality lab space. Moreover, a
renovated Building 307A would not only yield substantial energy savings
and reduce operating costs, but also would allow Beltsville to move
forward with other long-delayed relocation and consolidation plans. At
a minimum, funds are urgently needed to stabilize this vacant building
from continuing deterioration.
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.
[This statement was submitted by James D. Anderson, Ph.D.,
President, Friends of Agricultural Research.]
______
Prepared Statement of the International Walking Horse Association
(IWHA)
We submit the following testimony seeking funding for the USDA/
APHIS Horse Protection Program of $893,000 for fiscal year 2015. 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 $893,000, the same amount provided by the
Senate committee in its fiscal year 2014 bill, 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 Tennessee
Walking 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 various
foreign objects such as metal screws or hard acrylic between a heavy
stacked shoe and the sole of 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, Racking Horses, and Spotted Saddle 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.
To eliminate soring, the goal of the Act, USDA officials must be
present at more shows. However, limited funds allow USDA attendance at
only about 20 percent of more than 500 Tennessee Walking Horse shows.
Thus, 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 in a self-regulatory role. 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 violations recorded are many
times higher than at shows where industry inspectors alone are
conducting the inspections. Unfortunately, the largest, most popular
HIOs in the industry are the most conflicted, resulting in ongoing,
widespread abuse of horses. 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 have USDA oversee a legitimate inspection program.
The 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 served 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, Jackie
McConnell, was indicted in 2012 on 52 counts (18 of them felony) of
violating the Act and pleaded guilty to felony conspiracy to violate
the Act. He was sentenced to 3 years of probation and a $75,000 fine in
Federal court. Another Tennessee trainer, Larry Wheelon, and three of
his employees have been indicted on 19 counts of aggravated animal
cruelty charges under state law in a case flowing from a USDA Office of
Inspector General investigation.
While these are significant actions which should have a deterrent
effect, there are scores of other violators who go undetected and many
cases that go unprosecuted 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 (GC/MS) instruments), 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: 62 percent of samples taken by the USDA at 17 horse
shows in 2013 tested positive for illegal foreign substances, including
soring, masking, and numbing agents. In 2012, 65 percent of samples
tested at 24 horse shows by USDA tested positive for illegal foreign
substances.
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 2013, USDA was able to afford to
collect and test samples at only 17 of the industry's largest shows; in
2012, only 24. With increased funding, the USDA could purchase more
equipment and dispatch 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, and Spotted Saddle Horses 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 this segment of the horse industry, 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 horse
industry and animal protection 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 of
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 more than 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.
[This statement was submitted by Mark Matson, President,
International Walking Horse Association.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Meds & Food for Kids (MFK)
Meds & Food for Kids (MFK) appreciates the opportunity to submit
testimony to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies,
and requests that the Subcommittee fully fund the Local and Regional
Food Aid Procurement Project (LRP) at $80 million for fiscal year 2015,
as authorized in section 3207 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the Farm
Bill) and administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). The LRP is a critical tool for
international development that saves and improves lives by quickly
purchasing necessary food aid locally or regionally, while also
increasing resiliency through the further development of local food
systems.
MFK is a U.S. non-profit organization that manufactures high
quality, peanut-based ready-to-use therapeutic and supplementary foods
in Haiti that are used to treat and prevent malnutrition in young
children. MFK intimately knows the importance of local production and
procurement of food aid, including ready-to-use foods for treating
children with malnutrition, to Haiti's vulnerable populations. MFK has
been fighting malnutrition and poverty, its root cause, in Haiti since
2003. After the earthquake MFK transported all its available stocks to
Port au Prince for use in hospitals, clinics and orphanages. In total
we have saved the lives of over 120,000 in the last 10 years. Most of
those children were treated after we scaled up in 2012, by building a
new $3.2 million state-of-the-art factory in Cap Haitien, increasing
our annual production capacity from 80 to 800 metric tons (MT). We made
this urgent investment because every life saved, every body healed;
every brain protected, is an investment in Haiti's future. MFK believes
that Haiti, and countries like it, deserve a bright future.
MFK is working not only to rescue children from malnutrition, but
create a sustainable solution to the problem of food insecurity. We do
this by igniting economic development and building local technical
capacity. This longer-term mission just isn't possible without funding
for local and regional food aid procurement. We must move beyond rescue
to establish sustainable, locally-based solutions to achieve real and
lasting change. To this end, MFK employs 48 Haitian people in the
production of our peanut-based RUFs. MFK has also trained over 1,120
small-scale peanut farmers and supplied them with a reliable customer
for their peanuts. MFK is working with Clinton Giustra Foundation to
create Haitian agricultural ``middle men'' to supply inputs to farmers.
MFK will buy 50 MT of Haitian peanuts this year and has invested more
than $200,000 in local procurement of peanuts since 2008. In
complement, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has
donated to MFK over $100,000 of peanut equipment and funding for farmer
training.
With the help of development partners like USAID and USDA, we are
building sustainable supply chains, and creating expertise in food
safety and manufacturing. To date, MFK has passed three international
food safety audits, the only entity in Haiti to have done so. MFK also
recently completed a $1 million USDA McGovern Dole Micronutrient
Fortified Food Aid Pilot Project (MFFAPP) to develop and test a
nutritious school snack in Haiti. Making local and regional procurement
funds available to further projects like this one would only add value
to the McGovern Dole investment. MFK is an example of a success story
in helping to build resilience and sustainable food systems in Haiti.
By supporting local and regional food and agricultural supply chains
through the LRP, we will see more success stories in the future.
From our experience, the addition of local and regional procurement
of food to the U.S. Government's aid toolbox allows the policy and
programming flexibility necessary to best meet the needs of vulnerable
populations. It also helps to support and protect local farmers and
food manufacturers, allowing for longer term economic development. For
this reason, we support full funding of the Local and Regional Food Aid
Procurement Project along with the development of a strategy that will
be beneficial to both the world's most vulnerable populations and the
American tax-payers.
Thank you for providing MFK the opportunity to submit testimony
regarding the Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Project. Please
do not hesitate to contact me if the Subcommittee has any questions or
would like further information.
[This statement was submitted by Dr. Patricia Wolff, Executive
Director, Meds & Foods for Kids.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Affordable Housing Management
Association (NAHMA)
Thank you, Chairman Pryor and Ranking Member Blunt for the
opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the National
Affordable Housing Management Association (NAHMA). My testimony
concerns the fiscal year 2015 budget for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), and in particular, funding for the USDA-Rural
Development (RD) multifamily housing programs. The majority of my
testimony will discuss RD's requested funding and new legislative
authorities for its Section 521 Rural Rental Assistance (RA) Program.
about nahma
NAHMA members manage and provide quality affordable housing to more
than two million Americans with very low to moderate incomes. Our
membership consists of presidents and executives of property management
companies, owners of affordable rental housing, public agencies and
national organizations involved in affordable housing, and providers of
supplies and services to the affordable housing industry. In addition,
NAHMA serves as the national voice in Washington for 19 regional, state
and local affordable housing management associations (AHMAs)
nationwide.
funding for rd multifamily housing programs
Section 521 Rural Rental Assistance: The Section 521 Rural Rental
Assistance (RA) program is project-based rental assistance administered
by USDA-RD. It is often used in conjunction with Section 515 housing or
farm labor housing to pay apartment owners the difference between
tenants' contributions (30 percent of their income) and the monthly
rental rate.
For fiscal year 2015, USDA requests $1.089 billion for Section 521
Rural Rental Assistance. RD believes this request is sufficient to
accommodate renewals. NAHMA urges the Subcommittee to review this
request thoroughly, as it is based on assumptions for new legislative
authorities that affect the level of necessary funding. NAHMA firmly
believes that appropriations for this program must be sufficient to
provide 12 months of funding for all contracts.
This year, RD also requests legislative changes which would:
--Remove the requirement to fund RA contracts for a 1 year period,
and replace it with language to fund contracts ``up to 1
year'';
--Eliminate the automatic renewal of rental assistance contracts that
occur within the 12-month contract period; and
--Provide that ``rental assistance will be renewed at the discretion
of the Secretary.''
RD believes these changes will provide greater predictability in
the RA budget, as well as the necessary flexibility to prioritize RA
contract renewals during times of funding uncertainty (such as
continuing resolutions or under sequestration). NAHMA is concerned that
the specific language proposed is too broad, and we recommend that it
be revised to more closely reflect its stated intent.
After the RA shortfall which resulted from fiscal year 2013
sequestration, it is clear that RHS needs some degree of flexibility in
its contract renewal procedures during times of extraordinary budget
uncertainty. That said, the flexibility must not absolve the agency of
its financial obligations to owners for payment of RA during the term
of the contract, nor should it be used as a budget gimmick to request
less appropriations than are necessary to provide 12 months of contract
funding at the time of renewal.
Likewise, NAHMA respectfully suggests that an advanced
appropriation would offer a more straightforward mechanism to ensure RD
has the necessary funding for contract renewals when the agency must
operate under a continuing resolution. Advanced appropriations have
been used successfully for several years to renew HUD's Project-Based
Section 8 and Housing Choice Voucher contracts during the first quarter
of the fiscal year when continuing resolutions are in place.
In section 725 of USDA's proposed general provisions, the Agency
also requests authority to access the same interagency databases used
for income verification by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). RD is especially interested in using this authority
to reduce improper payments in its RA program. NAHMA supports this
request in concept. If Congress provides such authority, NAHMA
recommends that USDA-RD implement it by seeking access to HUD's
Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) System for RHS staff, as well as
for authorized property owners and managers. EIV obtains monthly Social
Security and Supplemental Security Income benefits data from the Social
Security Administration, and monthly employer new hires (W-4),
quarterly wage for Federal and non-Federal employees, and quarterly
unemployment data from the Department of Health and Human Services'
National Directory of New Hires (NDNH). It would seem more efficient
for RD to use the EIV system for income verification than to create an
entirely new system.
Section 515: Section 515 Direct Rural Rental Housing Loans are
competitive mortgage loans which finance affordable multifamily rental
housing for low-income families, the elderly and persons with
disabilities in rural America. The 2015 budget request proposes $28.432
million for the Section 515 direct loan program. NAHMA supports funding
at a level of at least $28.432 million.
Section 538: The Section 538 Multifamily Loan Guarantee program
provides loan guarantees which encourage construction, acquisition, or
rehabilitation of rural multifamily housing for low-income residents.
NAHMA supports RD's request of $150 million for this program.
Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization (MRP) Program: The
Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program funds tenant protection
vouchers, property rehabilitation and preservation demonstration
programs. RD requests $28 million for this program. Of this total
funding, $8 million would be directed to the Rural Housing Voucher
Program, which provides a rental subsidy to any low-income household
(including those not receiving rental assistance) residing in a
property financed with a Section 515 loan which has been prepaid after
September 30, 2005. Likewise, $20 million is proposed for the
demonstration program to preserve and recapitalize aging rural
multifamily rental properties. NAHMA supports funding for MRP program
at a level of at least $28 million. We are, however, concerned about
the proposed reduction in voucher funding from nearly $12.58 million in
the fiscal year 2014 Omnibus Appropriations Act to $8 million in RD's
fiscal year 2015 budget request. We urge the Subcommittee to carefully
consider whether $8 million will be sufficient to meet the demand for
these Rural Housing Vouchers in fiscal year 2015.
conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this testimony. I
look forward to working with the Subcommittee to ensure that USDA-RD's
multifamily housing programs are fully funded and properly
administered.
[This statement was submitted by Kris Cook, CAE, Executive
Director, National Affordable Housing Management Association.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Animal Health Laboratory Network
I am writing to urge your support for the inclusion of the National
Animal Health Laboratory Network in the fiscal year 2015 Agriculture
Appropriations Bill. The NAHLN was authorized in the recently passed
Farm Bill (Section. 12105). Serving as our nation's most vital early
warning system for emerging and foreign animal diseases, we are urging
the members of the Appropriation Committee to fund the NAHLN at $15
million for fiscal year 2015.
The NAHLN was developed in response to the Public Health Security
and BioTerrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, and the
Homeland Security Presidential Directive-9 (HSPD-9) of 2004 to
``develop nationwide laboratory networks for food, veterinary, plant
health and water quality that integrate existing Federal and State
laboratory resources, are interconnected, and utilize standardized
diagnostic protocols and procedures''.
During the past 12 years the NAHLN, composed of Federal,
university, and state veterinary diagnostic laboratories, has
established the framework of a surveillance and emergency response
system (not research) that provides critical and ongoing resources for
laboratory testing, surveillance, information management, quality
assurance and the development and validation of new tests.
Funding of NAHLN at $15 million would result in improved compliance
with HSPD-9 by: 1) expanding surveillance and surge capacity of the
NAHLN by increasing the number and level of participating state
laboratories; 2) additional development of the infrastructure for
electronic transmission of data between sample collectors, laboratories
and state and Federal databases; and 3) increasing efficiency and
effectiveness of laboratory personnel training and employment both
regionally and nationwide. Federal funding for the NAHLN at $15 million
would be leveraged over six times by direct state appropriations. A
survey of 34 NAHLN laboratories conducted by the American Association
of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians revealed direct state
appropriations of $100 million to NAHLN laboratories toward total
laboratory operation expenses of $186 million.
The NAHLN enables laboratories to test for economically devastating
diseases such as mad cow disease, foot-and-mouth disease, avian and
swine influenza, and classical swine fever. Without the NAHLN and the
early disease detection it provides, an outbreak of Foot and Mouth
Disease (FMD) could cost US agriculture an estimated $128 billion. This
includes decreased revenues for corn and soybean of $44 billion and
$24.9 billion, respectively. This loss translates into roughly 154,000
jobs over the course of the outbreak.
An August 2011 report from the GAO and a report from the Commission
on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation and
Terrorism both gave the nation a failing gradefor its ability to
respond to and recover from a biological attack, natural disaster or
animal disease event as required by HSPD-9. In order for the nation to
adequately respond to, and recover from, a biological attack; the NAHLN
needs $15 million to ensure such a threat would be quarantined in a
timely manner.
Wisconsin has benefited from the Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratory being a NAHLN laboratory on several occasions. Having the
ability to rapidly deliver foreign animal disease diagnostic samples to
the local laboratory has provided test results to State Animal Health
Officials hours or days before the same reports were received from the
National Veterinary Services Laboratory due to the time it takes to
ship samples. This early reporting has allowed the state to release
quarantines which were impacting commerce at slaughter facilities or
livestock production sites.
Thank you for your leadership on this vital issue to the
agriculture industry and consideration of this funding in the fiscal
year 15 Agriculture Appropriations Bill.
[This statement was submitted by Ben Brancel, Secretary, Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Farmers Union
On behalf of the family farmer and rancher members of National
Farmers Union (NFU), thank you for the opportunity to present funding
requests for fiscal year 2015. As a general farm organization, NFU has
a broad array of interests in the agricultural appropriations process.
This letter enumerates a few of the highest priorities for our members.
Additionally, the recent passage of the 2014 Farm Bill deserves the
attention of the subcommittee. I ask that programs that were granted
discretionary funding through the farm bill receive their full
appropriations, and that the subcommittee not reduce other program
funding through changes in mandatory programs.
REQUEST: No legislative riders or targeted funding reductions to limit
or restrict the enforcement, legal defense or study of Country-
of-Origin Labeling (COOL).
The 2008 Farm Bill requires retailers to notify customers through
labeling of the source of nearly all muscle cuts and ground meat, along
with fish, fruits, vegetables, nuts and a variety of other generally
unprocessed products. As of 2013, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) enacted rules that require the labeling of production steps--for
example, ``Born, Raised, and Harvested in the U.S.''--as directed by a
World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute. Another WTO proceeding is
currently underway to review the new COOL regulations' compliance with
trade agreements. A lawsuit is pending in U.S. court regarding
implementation of the new labels and initial attempts to enjoin the new
COOL requirements were defeated. Additionally, the 2014 Farm Bill
requires a study on the economic impact of COOL.
NFU opposes any funding cuts or legislative riders that would
circumvent enforcement, implementation, legal defense or study of COOL.
Studies have found that more than 90 percent of consumers support COOL.
Any threats of retaliation from Canada and Mexico are extremely
premature, as WTO appeals are slow-moving and typically last for years.
REQUEST: No legislative riders to limit or restrict the USDA's
rulemaking and enforcement authority under the Packers and
Stockyards Act of 1921.
Because of appropriations riders in the last 3 years, USDA has not
been allowed to write rules that would provide greater fairness for
livestock sellers and poultry growers in the agriculture marketplace,
as directed by the 2008 Farm Bill. This includes prohibiting deceptive
or fraudulent buying practices and permitting farmers and ranchers to
seek protection under the Packers and Stockyards Act if they have been
harmed by unfair trade practices.
While the last three legislative riders on GIPSA have varied, they
each have significantly undermined important protections for livestock
and poultry ranchers and growers. These provisions must not be
prevented; thus, NFU strongly urges the Subcommittee to reject any
legislative riders that would undermine GIPSA's authority and ignore
congressional intent.
REQUEST: Funding for the Food and Drug Administration to implement the
Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and to study its economic
impacts on farmers.
NFU asks that the FDA be adequately funded at the president's
request level for fiscal year 2015 with $253 million to be used for
implementation of FSMA. There are many areas of possible improvement
within the proposed FSMA rules, but it is imperative that the process
be provided resources in order to be effective. Of particular
importance is funding to provide food safety training to family farmers
and small processors. The president's request to spend $2.5 million on
that initiative is a low amount but a good start to prepare our members
to work well within the upcoming FSMA rules.
Additionally, I ask that no action be taken during the
appropriations process that would derail or detract from FDA's study of
the economic impacts of FSMA on farmers, as mandated by the 2014 Farm
Bill.
REQUEST: Report language on public cultivar development through the
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI).
The 2008 Farm Bill created the Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative (AFRI), which called for AFRI to make ``conventional'' plant
and animal breeding a priority for research grants. Implementation of
these directives has been slow. NFU asks that the fiscal year 2015
appropriations bill include report language that reiterates the need to
prioritize funding for classical plant and animal breeding within the
AFRI process.
REQUEST: Provide $25.9 million to the Genetic Improvement and
Translational Breeding Initiative, along with report language
directing funds to the development and release of regionally
adapted, public cultivars.
The administration's fiscal year 2015 budget requests $25.9 million
for a new Genetic Improvement and Translational Breeding Initiative to
be administered by the Agricultural Research Service. Given the very
substantial private and public investments in genomics and the lack of
funding for classical breeding for public cultivar development, clear
language ought to be included to direct ARS to focus all of the funding
provided for this initiative on the development and release of
regionally adapted, publicly held, cultivars to benefit farmers and
ranchers across the country.
REQUEST: Fully fund farm bill energy title programs at discretionary
funding levels and do not reduce program funding through
changes in mandatory programs. Also, allow 2014 Biomass Crop
Assistance Program (BCAP) funds to carry over into 2015 if they
are not expended.
The 2014 Farm Bill makes substantial investments in existing energy
programs such as the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), Biomass
Crop Assistance Program (BCAP), and Biorefinery Assistance Program
(BAP). NFU asks that the subcommittee not reduce any of the funds
allocated to these programs. In addition, because USDA may not expend
all funds for BCAP in 2014, NFU asks that language be inserted allowing
for unexpended 2014 BCAP funds to be carried over into 2015.
REQUEST: Provide $10 million for competitive grants and formula-based
funding for animal health and disease research.
Public investment in animal science has slipped in recent years,
especially in comparison to the economic impact of animal agriculture.
By 2050, global meat consumption is expected to increase by 73 percent,
dairy production by 57 percent, and per capita egg consumption in
developing countries is projected to rise by almost 40 percent. Animal
agriculture has a clear impact on rural America, as livestock and
poultry sales account for 40 percent of all U.S. farm income.
The 2014 Farm Bill revitalized the structure of a public funding
opportunity for animal science. I ask that $10 million be made
available to establish the new competitive grants program on sound
financial footing.
Thank you for your consideration of these requests.
[This statement was submitted by Roger Johnson, President, National
Farmers Union.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
Thank you for the opportunity to present our fiscal year 2015
funding requests. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a
national alliance of over 100 organizations that advocates for policies
that support the 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 three vital areas--small
and beginning, socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmers. We urge
that $1.4 million be provided for the OA&O, as requested by USDA.
Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and
Ranchers and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers. We urge you to provide $10
million in discretionary funding and no limitation in mandatory program
spending to restore total program funding to its historical level in
order to meet the increased demand for outreach and technical
assistance by military veteran farmers, and other historically
underserved producers.
agriculture research service
New Priority Research Initiative. We urge you to support the
reallocation of $25.9 million for a new Genetic Improvement and
Translational Breeding Initiative, as proposed by the Administration,
provided that report language directs ARS to use the funding to advance
classical breeding research and germplasm infrastructure to protect
agricultural genetic diversity and address long-term challenges to
agriculture such as climate change and global food security.
national institute of food and agriculture
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. We urge you
to fund this innovative competitive grants program at $30 million. The
fiscal year 15 Budget Request once again proposes to combine research,
education, and extension into a single line item. We do not oppose
consolidation, so long as funding is increased to cover all functions
outlined in statute, including Federal-state matching grants (7 U.S.C.
5813). To that effect, we urge the reiteration of the fiscal year 14
Senate report language (113-46) clarifying that ``all three activities
authorized in Subtitle B of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and
Trade Act of 1990 are vital to the success of the SARE program, and the
Committee directs the Department to ensure that each activity remain
intact in thefuture.'' SARE has helped turn farmer-driven research,
education, and extension into profitable and environmentally sound
practices for over 25 years. At $30 million, SARE would be at just half
its authorized level, half the level recommended by the National
Academy of Sciences, and nearly a quarter of the authorized level if
that level were updated to 2014 dollars. There is no other REE
competitive grant program that has a bigger bang for the buck.
Organic Transitions Integrated Research Program. We request $5
million to invest in innovative organic research with strong farmer
delivery mechanisms built in. This level of funding is critical to help
keep organics from falling further behind in its fair share of the
research budget.
Food Safety Outreach Program. We request $5 million to help small
and mid-size farms and small processing facilities comply with new
proposed food safety regulations. FDA is in the process of proposing
new, expansive food safety regulations for farmers and food processors
under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). This FSMA-authorized
Food Safety Training Program will provide farmers with the training
they need to implement and comply with new food safety rules. We are
thrilled USDA has requested funding to begin this program, but believe
their request of $2.5 million is insufficient and therefore urge you to
launch this urgently needed program at $5 million to ensure that
multiple regions of the country can benefit rather than just a single
region.
agricultural marketing service
Federal-State Market Improvement Program. FSMIP provides matching
funds to state departments of agriculture to help grantees conduct
research and create innovations to increase new markets for farmers. We
request $1.363 million, the same as fiscal year 2014 funding.
Organic Production and Market Data Initiatives. As the organic
industry surpasses $31 billion a year in sales, organic market
reporting is vital to creating fair risk management tools and
collecting adequate data on organic markets. We request $0.3 million
for AMS to continue and enhance reporting on organic production,
marketing, and pricing data. We also support ongoing organic data
collection and analysis through NASS and ERS.
Local Food Data Collection and Analysis. Information concerning
state and regional food needs is not readily available to food system
developers and investors who need to gain a better understanding of the
opportunities and challenges that exist for agricultural food systems
across the country. We support the President's request of $2.6 million
for AMS to partner with Federal and state agencies, Land-Grant
Universities, Regional Planning Commissions, and other entities to
conduct 6 to 10 state local and regional food system assessments. We
would also encourage the Committee to include report language directing
AMS to incorporate data collection and assessments of market price
information for direct and intermediated local and regional food
markets.
farm service agency
Direct Farm Ownership Loans, Direct Operating Loans, and Individual
Development Accounts. Direct loans provide capital for beginning
farmers and others not served by commercial credit. This is critical in
light of the increasing age of farmers and the land access challenges
faced by beginning farmers. Similarly, the Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Individual Development Account (IDA) program, authorized by the 2008
and 2014 Farm Bills, will enable limited-resource beginning farmers and
ranchers to save for asset-building purchases, including farmland,
equipment, breeding stock, or similar expenditures.
Through the IDA program, FSA will offer competitive grants, with a
50 percent local match required, and financial management training as
the core component of the program. We support the President's fiscal
year 15 Budget Request for program levels of $1.5 billion for Direct
Farm Ownership loans, $1.252 billion for Direct Operating Loans, and
$2.5 million for the IDA program. We also request an additional $4
million in ACIF administrative expenses \1\ specifically to allow FSA
to provide intermediary technical assistance and loan delivery services
to new microloan borrowers. This combined package will serve new,
beginning, and veteran farmers well, and at a reduction in the actual
appropriated amounts relative to fiscal year 14--$46 million in budget
authority and approximately$51 million in outlays, a net reduction in
actual appropriations of $24 million and approximately $16 million,
respectively, according to OMB's figures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account'' on
page 104 of the President's Budget Appendix
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
natural resources conservation service
Conservation Technical Assistance. CTA, a subset of Conservation
Operations, helps farmers develop and implement conservation plans to
conserve resources on their farms. NRCS also uses CTA funds to assess
conservation practices and systems, and to collect, analyze, and
disseminate data on the condition of the nation's natural resources. We
urge you to provide no less than $717 million for CTA, as requested in
the President's fiscal year 15 budget request.
rural business and cooperative service
Value-Added Producer Grants. VAPG offers grants to farmers and
ranchers developing farm- and food-related businesses that boost farm
income and create jobs in rural America. VAPG encourages the kind of
entrepreneurship that enables rural communities to grow economically.
Growing interest in local and regional foods means greater need for
regional supply chains and enterprises that aggregate local production,
exactly the kind of rural development strategy VAPG is designed to
support. We request no changes in mandatory program spending as well as
$15 million in discretionary funding for VAPG, the same level as
included in the final fiscal year 14 bill.
Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program. RMAP provides business
training, technical assistance, and microloans to owner-operated
businesses with up to ten employees. It is specifically targeted at
very small business development, the leading job creator in rural
communities. The 2014 Farm Bill renews a modest investment of $3
million per year in direct farm bill spending for RMAP loans and
grants. The President's fiscal year 15 Budget Request includes $3.3
million in discretionary funding for RMAP loans, as well as no changes
in mandatory program spending. For a second year in a row, the Budget
Request recommends that Congress combine the RMAP grant component with
several other rural development programs. Congress considered this
proposal during the fiscal year 14 appropriations process and during
farm bill proceedings, and in both cases, wisely rejected the
consolidation proposal. We support the President's fiscal year 15
Budget Request of no changes in mandatory program spending, as well as
$3.3 million in discretionary funding; however, we urge that this
discretionary funding be provided for the cost of loans and grants.
This level of appropriation combined with the new farm bill funding
will result in over $40 million in new microloans plus expanded
entrepreneurial development training, an incredibly smart investment.
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas. The ATTRA program,
also known as the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service
and reauthorized by the 2014 Farm Bill, provides critical support to
farmers, Extension agents, and conservation and energy specialists
throughout the country. We urge $2.5 million for ATTRA for fiscal year
2015.
Rural Cooperative Development Grants. RCDG invests in rural
development by helping individuals start or expand cooperatives. We
oppose the Administration's proposal to consolidate RCDG into a Rural
Business and Cooperative Grants program. We request $9.1 million for
RCDG, including $3 million for centers targeting socially disadvantaged
producers.
general provisions
Repeated annual cuts to the Conservation Stewardship Program,
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and other farm bill
conservation programs have created enormous backlogs of applications
among highly qualified producers and made it difficult for farmers to
maintain healthy soil, protect water, and mitigate and adapt to the
impacts of drought. We strongly oppose changes in mandatory program
spending to these critical conservation programs.
Finally, we oppose the inclusion of any policy riders that limit
implementation and enforcement of the Packers & Stockyards Act.
Limiting farmers' free speech rights to consult with Members of
Congress and limiting USDA's ability to protect market transparency has
no rightful place in the appropriations bill or any other legislation.
[This statement was submitted by Juli Obudzinski, NSAC Senior
Policy Specialist.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society
Ms. Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to provide testimony regarding funding of critically
important Federal programs that impact those affected by multiple
sclerosis. We urge the Subcommittee to provide $3.784 billion in
discretionary spending for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an unpredictable, often disabling
disease of the central nervous system that interrupts the flow of
information within the brain, and between the brain and body. Symptoms
range from numbness and tingling to blindness and paralysis. The
progress, severity, and specific symptoms of MS in any one person
cannot yet be predicted. Most people with MS are diagnosed between the
ages of 20 and 50, with at least two to three times more women than men
being diagnosed with the disease.
The National MS Society sees itself as a partner to the government
in many critical areas. For instance in fiscal year 2013, we dedicated
approximately $48 million in MS research through funds generated
through the Society's fundraising efforts. While we're here to advocate
for Federal funding, we do it as an organization that commits tens of
millions of dollars each year to similar or complementary efforts as
those being funded by the Federal government, including partnerships
with the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
administration
The FDA is the United States' pre-eminent public health agency. Its
role as the regulator of the country's pharmaceutical industry provides
invaluable support and encourages vital progress for people living with
MS and other diseases. In its capacity as the industry's regulator, the
FDA ensures that drugs and medical devices are safe and effective for
public use and provides consumers with confidence in new technologies.
Because of the tremendous impact the FDA has on the development and
availability of drugs and devices for individuals with disabilities,
the National MS Society requests that Congress provide $2.784 billion
in discretionary appropriations. This funding will allow FDA to
complete its current mandates, which include developing a biosimilar
approval pathway and appropriately implementing the Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) of 2012.
Advancements in medical technology and medical breakthroughs play a
pivotal role in decreasing the societal costs of disease and
disability. The FDA is responsible for approving drugs for the market
and in this capacity has the ability to keep healthcare costs down.
Each dollar invested in the life-science research regulated by the FDA
has the potential to save upwards of $10 in health gains. Breakthroughs
in medications and devices can reduce the potential costs of disease
and disability in Medicare and Medicaid and can help support the
healthier, more productive lives of people living with chronic diseases
and disabilities, like MS.
The approval of low-cost generic drugs saved the healthcare system
$140 billion in 2010 and nearly $1 trillion over the past decade.
However, recent funding constraints have resulted in a 2 year backlog
of generic drug approval applications and could potentially cost the
Federal government and patients billions of dollars in the coming
years. Similarly, FDA was tasked with creating a biosimilars approval
pathway in 2010, which still needs to be finalized. This pathway is
expected to allow a cheaper alternative for some very expensive
biologic medications. The potential for these cost-saving medical
breakthroughs and overall healthcare savings relies on a vibrant
industry and an adequately funded FDA.
Entire industries are working to enhance the lives of Americans
with new medical devices and pharmaceuticals with tens of billions of
dollars being spent annually by the NIH and industry in pursuit of new
breakthroughs. The FDA has a comparatively small budget yet is charged
with ensuring the safety and efficacy of these new products.
conclusion
The National MS Society thanks the Committee for the opportunity to
provide written testimony and our recommendations for fiscal year 2015
appropriations. The agencies and programs we have discussed are of
vital importance to people living with MS and we look forward to
continuing to working with the Committee to help move us closer to a
world free of MS. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any
questions.
[This statement was submitted by Ted Thompson, Vice President of
Federal Government Relations, National MS Society.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Federation
On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), the nation's
largest conservation advocacy and education organization, and our more
than four million members and supporters, we thank the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture for the opportunity to
provide fiscal year 2015 funding recommendations for the Department of
Agriculture. We urge the Subcommittee to oppose all cuts to mandatory
agricultural conservation programs in the fiscal year 2015 agriculture
appropriations legislation.
After several years of negotiation, Congress recently passed
Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act (Public Law 113-79) with broad
bipartisan support. This recently passed Farm Bill includes much needed
funding for conservation priorities, and it is critical that Congress
ensure that all of this allocated funding, as signed into law, can be
spent as Congress intended.
Farm Bill Conservation programs--including the Conservation Reserve
Program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Regional
Conservation Partnership Program, Agricultural Conservation Easement
Program, Conservation Stewardship Program, and Voluntary Public Access
Program--have been disproportionately cut in recent appropriations
cycles and in this last farm bill.
From fiscal year 2003-2012, Changes in Mandatory Program Spending
(CHIMPS) for farm bill conservation programs have increased steadily,
threatening to undermine our most critical conservation programs.
According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), total CHIMPS to
mandatory agricultural programs from fiscal year 2003-2010 equaled $7.5
billion.\1\ These cuts increased to over $9 billion in fiscal year
2012. The Conservation Title of the Farm Bill has been unduly targeted,
accounting for over 50 percent of cuts to mandatory agricultural
programs from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2010 and 83 percent of
all Farm Bill CHIMPS from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2010.\2\
Since the enactment of the 2002 Farm Bill, appropriators have taken
roughly $4.4 billion from Farm Bill mandatory conservation spending.\3\
On top of this, conservation programs were cut by an additional $6
billion in the latest Farm Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Jim Monke and Megan Stubbs, Reductions in Mandatory Agriculture
Program Spending, CRS Report for Congress (Congressional Research
Service, May 19, 2010), http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/
R41245.pdf.
\2\ Monke and Stubbs, Reductions in Mandatory Agriculture Program
Spending. National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, comparison of
budget authority to appropriations bills. Note: does not include
rescissions.
\3\ National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, comparison of
budget authority to appropriations bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With increased pressures on working lands to produce food, fuel,
and fiber for our nation and the world, farm bill conservation programs
critically important now more than ever. These conservation programs
are crucial to the health and viability of agriculture and rural
America. They help farmers, ranchers and foresters to voluntarily
address their key resource concerns and assist them in complying with
local, state, and Federal regulations. They deliver demonstrated
environmental benefits including clean air, healthy soil, clean water,
and abundant habitat for wildlife. And they bring important economic
benefits and jobs to rural areas, including increased revenues from
hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities. The demand for
enrollment in these programs routinely exceeds the funds available,
even without any cuts.
Mandatory funding levels for farm bill programs were just agreed
upon by Congress during the Farm Bill reauthorization process; it is
unacceptable to continue to slash these programs yearly during the
appropriations process and to continue to disproportionately target
farm bill conservation programs. We ask the Appropriations Committees
to recognize the importance of agricultural conservation programs by
rejecting cuts to mandatory Farm Bill conservation programs and
allowing these programs to receive the full allocation as set by the
Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act (Public Law 113-79).
[This statement was submitted by Aviva Glaser, Senior Agriculture
Policy Specialist, National Wildlife Federation.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC)
The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) strongly supports the
budget for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and we are very excited about the
new Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) in the recently
passed 2014 Farm Bill. However, because the RCPP combines the
authorities of several existing programs, clarification is needed on
how some of the provisions will be implemented. Specifically, we
request detail on how the new RCPP will cover existing multi-year
agreements funded under the Agricultural Water Enhancement Program
(AWEP) or Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI). OWRC
also requests that the Columbia River Basin and Klamath River Basin be
considered for inclusion in the Critical Conservation Areas (CCAs).
Furthermore, it is crucial that the RCPP has adequate resources to
leverage partnerships and tackle the complex natural resources
conservation issues facing the nation. Lastly, we are strongly
supportive of coordinated Federal agency watershed planning and funding
for the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
OWRC was established in 1912 as a trade association to support the
protection of water rights and promote the wise stewardship of water
resources statewide. OWRC members are local governmental entities,
which include irrigation districts, water control districts, drainage
districts, water improvement districts, and other agricultural water
suppliers that deliver water to roughly 1/3 of all irrigated land in
Oregon. These water stewards operate complex water management systems,
including water supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and hydropower
production.
clarification of rcpp provisions
OWRC is requesting that funding for the NRCS RCPP be clarified to
ensure that projects with existing AWEP and CCPI agreements are
eligible for funding. OWRC has members with multi-year agreements with
NRCS under AWEP and/or CCPI and they are concerned that the remainder
of those years may not be funded. This concern is based on remarks made
by USDA officials in Washington DC stating that AWEP and CCPI ``went
away'' with the new Farm Bill. As OWRC and its national partners
understand the 2014 Farm Bill, it was the intent to consolidate the
authorities and maximize the benefits of AWEP and CCPI, not to
eliminate these valuable programs. Our organization is hopeful that
clarification will be provided so that NRCS can merge the existing
agreements into the new RCCP program in a seamless manner. It is in the
best interest of those holding current multi-year agreements that this
is done as quickly as possible so that they can continue with these
beneficial long-term projects that leverage the investments of multiple
state and Federal partners.
OWRC also strongly supports the additional 7 percent (7 percent) of
funding on top of the $100 million that is to be transferred from AWEP
and other related conservation programs that are being combined into
the RCPP. It is important to note that we are concerned about
implications for program expenditures since the April 1st deadline
referenced in Section 2401 for any uncommitted funds returning to each
covered program has now passed. Ideally, solicitations for RCPP
projects should be issued between Oct-Dec 2014 in order to obligate
funds in a timely fashion to meet the March 31st commitment date.
Additionally, as the Secretary of Agriculture considers
recommendations regarding the new Critical Conservation Areas (CCAs)
under the 2014 Farm Bill, OWRC requests that the Columbia Basin and the
Klamath Basin be considered for inclusion as CCAs. Both Basins are
facing significant natural resources challenges, span multiple states,
and would be excellent candidates to more efficiently promote soil,
water and habitat conservation programs on a regional level. The
Columbia Basin, which covers parts of seven states and is the fourth
largest watershed in the nation, continues to be one of the nation's
largest environmental challenges as it wrestles with implementing
recovery efforts under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) while balancing
other diverse resource needs. The Klamath Basin, which covers parts of
Oregon and California, is also facing a complex set of ESA issues that
have been further compounded by a devastating drought that has dire
impacts for the both agricultural and environmental resources. NRCS
funding and participation are an essential part of the cooperative
conservation efforts for addressing the complex ESA needs in both of
these basins.
rcpp needs
Federal support of water conservation activities funded through
NRCS programs, including the RCPP is essential to the conservation of
our natural resources and critical to protecting our food, energy and
water supply. Financial assistance has diminished in recent years and
there is a backlog of unmet need. We worry that a further decline of
funding for fiscal year 2015 will severely impact districts and other
agricultural water suppliers. For example, in 2013, Oregon requested
$24.7 million in financial assistance for NRCS funding, but received
approximately $20 million. Because of the large unmet need, we are
strongly supportive of providing allocations for fiscal year 2014 year
to meet state requests that have been unfunded in recent years.
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.
RCPP helps 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. RCPP
allow farmers to pool together and leverage the dollars invested in the
off-farm project with the addition of EQIP on-farm projects. And as
previously mentioned, due to the large number of successful project
applications for AWEP, USDA should continue to fund existing AWEP
projects within the new RCPP program to finish out 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 RCPP projects that
simultaneously benefit the environment and economy.
rcpp benefits
OWRC strongly supports the new RCPP, which we see as a critical
tool for districts and other agricultural water suppliers in developing
and implementing water and energy conservation projects in Oregon. In
the past AWEP has been highly successful in developing cooperative
approaches on a basin-wide scale, and historically, the CCPI
partnerships in the past allowed Federal, State and Local interests to
address ESA and Clean Water Act (CWA) issues in watershed basins and
sub basins.
We are hopeful the RCPP will continue to allow districts and other
agricultural water suppliers to partner with farmers to address
regional water quantity and quality issues in local watersheds. It is
our belief that water supply issues in Oregon and elsewhere in the
nation can be resolved best at the local level, in cooperative
partnership efforts that promote conservation with a more aggressive
Federal funding partnership as defined in RCPP.
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 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 2013 Funding: $180,000; Fiscal Year 2012 $251,300
--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 2013 Funding: $0;
Fiscal Year 2012 Funding: $4,470
--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 2013
Funding: $180,000; Fiscal Year 2012 $251,300
--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.
Additional innovative projects like the ones above could be
developed and implemented in Oregon if more funding is made available.
small watershed rehabilitation program and watershed planning needs
OWRC also strongly supports the Small Watershed Rehabilitation
Program. One of our members, Sutherlin Water Control District (SWCD)
has two dams that were built under PL-566. Both dams are reaching 50
years old and while they were built to seismic standards 50 years ago,
they are no longer up to par. In 2010, SWCD received $40,000 ($20,000
for each dam) for a needs assessment study that determined that both
dams are high hazard and in immediate need of retrofit and repair. The
two dams are in such desperate need of repair that they are numbers 1
and 2 on Oregon NRCS' priority list for funding. A more thorough
seismic study is needed to determine how to bring the dams up to code,
but it is important to note that even a small earthquake (less than a
2.0 on the Richter scale) has the potential to damage the dams severely
enough to cause breaches, flooding and damaging property and resources
in the surrounding area. NRCS needs significant funding so it can
address its high priority dams, like the ones in the SWCD. A minimum of
$250 million dollars in funding is needed for NRCS to address and
repair high priority dams, like the ones in the SWCD. It would also be
beneficial if the program was given flexibility to include piping and
water conservation projects that have multiple environmental, farming
and safety benefits.
OWRC also reiterates requests made in previous years that the
``Bridging the Headgates'' MOU be reactivated and expanded to include
other Federal agencies. 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, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE), is a significant issue. With the historic 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 and 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. 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.
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. 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 2015 budget for the U.S. Department
of Agriculture.
[This statement was submitted by April Snell, Executive Director,
Oregon Water Resources Congress.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Organic Trade Association (OTA)
Chairman Aderholt, Ranking Member Farr, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am Laura Batcha, Executive Director and CEO of the
Organic Trade Association (OTA).\1\ The organic agricultural economy
continues to be one of the fastest-growing sectors of American
agriculture and is a job creator. The Organic Foods Production Act of
1990 (OFPA) set in motion the creation of a vibrant marketplace that
has grown to $35 billion in sales over 22 years, at a 2012 growth rate
of over 10 percent.\2\ The industry is comprised of over 17,000 organic
businesses in the U.S., and is creating jobs in the manufacturing
sector at four times the rate of the economy as a whole.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Organic Trade Association is the membership-based business
association representing more than 6,500 organizations in the organic
industry including growers, shippers, processors, certifiers, farmers'
associations, distributors, importers, exporters, consultants,
retailers, and others. OTA's mission is to promote and protect the
growth of organic trade to benefit the environment, farmers, the
public, and the economy.
\2\ 2013 Organic Trade Association Organic Industry survey.
\3\ National Organic Program database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic is more than simply a marketing seal; it is a distinct
production system with independent marketplace dynamics. When viewed as
a distinct class, organic ranks fourth in food/feed crop production at
farm-gate values.\4\ This parallel stream of commerce and agricultural
production is a bright spot in the American marketplace of innovation
and entrepreneurship. Organic is no longer a niche product category, it
is a mainstream market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NASS USDA 2011 Organic Production Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Farm Bill passed into law earlier this year recognizes this,
and brings an enhanced array of authorities and resources to help the
organic sector continue to grow, innovate, create new markets and jobs,
provide certified operations new tools to succeed, and ensure access to
safe and nutritious food supply. To facilitate this, we respectfully
request the following funding levels for programs pertinent to the
organic industry: USDA (AMS) National Organic Program--$9.1 million;
USDA (AMS) Organic Data Initiative--$309,000; USDA (NASS) Organic Data
Initiative--$250,000; USDA (NIFA) Organic Transition Research Program--
$4 million; USDA (RCBS) Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural
Areas--$2.5 million; USDA (ARS) Genetic Improvements and Translational
Breeding Program--report language directing the funding be fully
allocated to regionally adapted public cultivar development; and USDA
(NIFA) Food Safety Outreach Program--$2.5 million.
national organic program (nop)
OTA requests $9.1 million for the National Organic Program, which
is charged with regulating the organic sector, and not only enforcing
the organic regulations, but ensuring they evolve to keep pace with
consumer expectations. This program is vital to meeting growing
consumer demand for organic products. Recognizing continued growth of
the industry and the need for fiscal restraint, we ask for $9.1
million, the amount in the President's Budget and an amount that
reflects the over 10 percent growth rate of the sector. The industry
currently returns over $200 for every $1 spent on the NOP, so an
increased investment would garner a strong return for the Federal
government.
organic data initiative (odi)
ODI collects and disseminates data regarding organic agriculture
through the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and the National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). This program has been
successful in providing valuable information to Congress, government
agencies, and the organic industry at a low cost. Because ODI was
appropriately funded with mandatory funding in the 2014 Farm Bill, we
ask for a modest amount of $309,000 in discretionary funding for AMS
and $250,000 in discretionary funding for NASS.
AMS collects organic prices and disseminates the data through
Market News Reports, which give producers and buyers farm-gate selling
prices for several organic products, helping to create a more stable
organic market. This is an excellent first step, but organic pricing
information falls far behind what is available to conventional
agriculture. Organic producers currently receive farm-gate prices for
only a limited number of products, while conventional producers receive
farm-gate, terminal, and retail price information for many products in
all regions of the country. Organic producers, processors, and
retailers need this information to maintain a stable organic market.
Moreover, this information is necessary for the Secretary to fulfill
his recently announced policy directive regarding crop insurance. We
therefore request $309,000 for AMS to continue and expand organic price
reporting services in fiscal year 2015.
NASS provides surveys based on Census of Agriculture data. In
October 2012, NASS released the Organic Production Survey (2011), the
second survey to provide a state-by-state collection of the amount of
farmland used for organic production and gross farm sales of organic
products. Such information has long been provided for conventional
production, and should continue to be funded for organic production.
OTA requests that NASS receive $250,000 in fiscal year 2015, to
continue work on the next Organic Production Survey.
organic transition research program (org)
OTA requests that ORG be funded at $4 million in fiscal year 2015,
the same level that is included in the President's budget. Authorized
by Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education
Reform Act of 1998, ORG provides funding for research grants that
specifically study the relationship between organic agriculture and
improving critical water quality problems. This program consistently
receives many more funding requests than it can accommodate.
Organic retail sales have grown to over 4 percent of retail
agriculture sales, but research funding provided to organic agriculture
has never exceeded 2 percent of all agriculture research dollars.
Without continued funding of ORG as an organic-specific research grant
program, this gap will only increase. The program should be funded at
$4 million to facilitate growth of this important research.
appropriate technology transfer for rural areas (attra)
We request $2.5 million to fund ATTRA, the amount that is found in
the President's budget. ATTRA helps thousands of organic and
conventional farmers across the country by supplying information about
a wide range of issues. Topics that are routinely asked about include
creating rural jobs by encouraging farming; developing new marketing
opportunities by focusing on local foods, farm-to-school, and farmers'
markets; reducing the use of herbicides and pesticides; employing farm
practices that help protect air, water, and soil resources; and
reducing energy and water use. ATTRA reports that 30 percent of the
calls received relate to organic practices.
genetic improvements and translational breeding program
OTA requests that the entirety of the funding dedicated to the
Genetic Improvements and Translational Breeding Program be dedicated to
regionally adapted public cultivar development. Public resources for
classical breeding have dwindled in recent decades, and our capacity
for public breeding is in critical condition. U.S. agricultural
productivity and resilience will be strengthened by the development of
new public breeds, lines, and strains with better climate adaptation,
drought tolerance, disease resistance, nutritional value, production
efficiencies, and impact on the environment. It is essential that the
work done by USDA on breeding--investment of public monies--be
dedicated entirely to regionally adapted public cultivar development.
Public monies should go to public research, not research on privately
held breeding technologies.
food safety outreach program
OTA requests that the Food Safety Outreach Program be funded at
$2.5 million, the amount that is in the President's budget. This will
provide food safety training and technical assistance, education, and
extension to owners and operators of small farms, small food
processors, and small fruit and vegetable vendors affected by the Food
Safety Modernization Act of 2011 (FSMA). This money will help farmers
and food processors understand, interpret, implement, and comply with
the new food safety regulations currently being proposed by the FDA.
conclusion
Organic agriculture creates economic opportunities for farmers and
rural communities, while improving and conserving the condition of the
environment and giving consumers the choice to buy foods and other
products that are produced according to organic standards. Meeting
these funding requests will help to ensure the continued growth of U.S.
organic agriculture by promoting and supporting the integrity of the
organic label, providing important data, and continuing to support
research for organic agriculture.
I thank the Committee and look forward to working with you to
advance the organic industry.
[This statement was submitted by Laura Batcha, Executive Director
and CEO of the Organic Trade Association (OTA).]
______
Prepared Statement of the Outreach and Assistance to Socially
Disadvantaged and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers
As the subcommittee considers fiscal year 2015 Agriculture
Appropriations, we urge you to provide adequate funding for a set of
critical programs that make a real difference in communities that most
need support. While only a fraction of the full agriculture budget
these are the lifeblood for socially disadvantaged, new entry and
veteran producers, farmworkers and communities:
Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged and Veteran
Farmers and Ranchers: We request that the committee restore the funding
base of the OASDVFR Program to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to
assist both socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers in
participating equitably in the full range of USDA agricultural
programs. Specifically we urge you to provide not less than $10 million
in additional funding to supplement the direct funding of $10 million
annually in order to assure the program can accommodate both the
traditional and new constituencies of the program, and ensure that
Veteran Farmers and Ranchers are able to fully benefit from the
program.
The OASDVFR Program helps our nation's historically underserved
producers gain access to the United States Department of Agriculture's
credit, commodity, conservation and other programs and services by
supporting technical assistance to producers through community-based
organizations, tribes and educational institutions best prepared to
reach and serve them. Established in Section 2501 of the 1990 Farm
Bill, OASDFR provides technical assistance to reduce the trend among
socially disadvantaged producers of engaging in fewer farm program
payments, fewer and lower-valued loans, and less outreach and training
than other producers.
--The OASDVFR Program in recent years has served more than 100,000
rural constituents and is an invaluable resource for the more
than 400 counties in more than 35 states serving a wide range
of socially disadvantaged recipients living in persistent
poverty areas of the country.
--The program is bringing diverse producers back to USDA or in the
door for the first time greatly increasing participation in the
NRCS High-tunnel program and the FSA microloan program. OASDVFR
programs are fundamental to the goals and work of Secretary
Vilsack's Strikeforce Initiative.
--The 2014 Farm Bill expanded the program to include Veteran Farmers
and Ranchers, but with a 50 percent reduction from previous
funding levels to provide only $10 million in direct funds
annually. With adequate resources, the OASDVFR Program can also
provide critical support for veteran farmers and ranchers. The
2010 Census identified 21.9 million veterans in 2009, including
156,000 American Indian Veterans, 2.4 million African American
Veterans, 1.2 million Hispanic Veterans, and 265,000 Asian
Veterans. Many Veterans are from rural areas.
--The lack of funding for the program in fiscal year 2013 has meant
that groups receiving support have already or are laying off
hundreds of experienced staff as the final year of their
contacts have expired creating a service gap to thousands of
producers who need their assistance to access USDA programs.
Restoring these services is essential with a new Farm Bill
coming into effect.
We strongly support this important program and ask you to support
funding at the fully authorized level to ensure both the traditional
constituencies and the expanded constituency of Veteran Farmers and
Ranchers are able to fully benefit from the program.
USDA Coordination Activities: Beginning and socially disadvantaged
producers have long needed an office at USDA to help better understand
and utilize the wide array of USDA services. The Office of Advocacy and
Outreach, established in the 2008 Farm Bill, is 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 our nation's diverse and new entry producers. We urge
you to provide the full $2 million authorized to support OAO's staffing
and operational needs and activities related to the new Military
Veterans Agricultural Liaison as well as the Farmworker Coordinator and
the OASDVFR Program; overseeing the Advisory Committees on Minority
Farmers and Ranchers, and Beginning Farmers and Ranchers; and managing
the 1890, 1994 and Hispanic serving institutions programs. Adequate OAO
funding will enhance coordination among USDA agencies as a new Farm
Bill takes effect to include underserved constituencies and Strikeforce
areas.
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 at least $10 million for fiscal year 2015
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. 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. The inadequate funding of FRTEP has 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 US citizens who are not
reservation-bound. In order to correct this grave inequity, we urge you
to provide $10 million for this program in the fiscal year 2015
Agriculture Appropriation.
The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Account
(BFRIDA) Program is designed to help beginning farmers and ranchers of
limited means finance their farming endeavors through business and
financial education and matched savings accounts. This new program
helps individuals with financial training and assistance so they can
build assets and make needed purchases to get started in agriculture.
We urge you support of $2.5 million fiscal year 2015 appropriation for
BFRIDA so it can work together with other new farmer initiatives to
create economic opportunities and greater stability for both urban and
rural beginning farmers. We further urge you to support the President's
fiscal year 2015 Budget Request for program leve1s of $1.5 billion for
Direct Farm Ownership loans and $1.252 billion for Direct Operating
Loans. We also urge you to instruct FSA to develop price information to
improve eligibility and lending capabilities for farmers growing for
local and regional food markets.
We also 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.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)--We request
that you invest in critical sustainable agriculture research and
education conducted at the field level by farmers themselves by
including funding for fiscal year 2015 of $30 million the SARE program.
Healthy Food Financing Initiative: We urge you improve health
outcomes and increase access to healthy foods for low-income people by
strengthening local food systems through significant investments of
funds from both the Department of Agriculture and Department of
Treasury necessary to get the Healthy Food Financing Initiative fully
operational in fiscal year 2015.
Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer BT (SEBTC) pilot projects: For
the past 2 years, USDA has been conducting pilot projects in eight
states and two Indian nations that used electronic benefits to reach
children when school meals are unavailable. These pilots have been
proving remarkably successful at reducing childhood hunger and we urge
they be continued with a $30 million investment.
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI): We support
inclusion of report language and funding for increased public research
and development of seed varieties and livestock breeds to ensure the
diversity of our nation's food supply. Specifically, we urge the
inclusion of report language on public cultivar development be included
under AFRI, and for USDA to see classical plant and animal breeding as
a priority area within the AFRI process.
Rural Cooperative Development Grants: We urge you to provide $9.1
million for RCDG, including $3 million for centers targeting socially
disadvantaged producers to assist individuals in beginning and
expanding cooperatives. We oppose the Administration's proposal to
consolidate RCDC into a Rural Business and Cooperative Grants program.
Rural Microenterprise Assistance Program: We urge you to foster
development in rural areas by preserving the full mandatory funding of
$3 million as provided in the 2014 Farm bill and by adding an
additional $3.3 million in discretionary funding, for total support of
$6.3 million.
Value-Added Producer Grants: VAPG offers grants to farmers and
ranchers developing farm- and food-related businesses that boost farm
income and create jobs in rural America. Growing interest in local and
regional foods means greater need for regional supply chains and
enterprises that aggregate local production, exactly the kind of rural
development strategy VAPG is designed to support. We request no changes
in mandatory program spending as well as $15 million in discretionary
funding for VAPG, the same level as included in the final fiscal year
14 bill.
Food Safety Training: We urge you to provide funding to assist
farmers to adapt to coming Food Safety and Modernization Act rules for
Food Safety Training at $5 million for fiscal year 2015.
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas: We urge you to
provide $2.5 million to ATTRA for fiscal year 2015 to provide support
to farmers and extension agents across the country.
Organic Transitions Integrated Research Program: We urge you to
provide $5 million to invest in new organic research with farmer
delivery systems included and allow organics a fairer portion of the
research budget.
Federal-State Market Improvement Program: We request funding be
continued at the fiscal year 2014 level of $1.363 million. This program
is critical in matching funds to state departments of agriculture to
assist with research and creating new markets for farmers.
Conservation Programs: We further urge you to protect and maintain
direct funding for agricultural conservation programs including the
Environmental Quality Incentive Program and the Conservation
Stewardship Program, and other programs that help producers across the
nation protect their land. The diverse producers we 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.
Implementation and Enforcement of Existing Laws: We strongly
support allowing USDA to implement and enforce existing laws relating
to provisions of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and the Grain
Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) as included in
the 2008 Farm Bill. We strongly oppose the use of riders within the
appropriations process to limit the authority of the USDA to enforce
these important laws.
As you proceed with funding for these important programs for fiscal
year 2015, we urge you to consider the impacts of your funding
decisions on the next generation of American farmers and ranchers, and
with great care to being inclusive of beginning, minority, tribal,
women, and limited resource farmers who are often in most need of these
important programs.
Rural Coalition/Coalicin Rural, Washington, DC Community Food &
Justice Coalition, Oakland, CA Farmers Veteran Coalition, Davis, CA
Federation of Southern Cooperatives Rural Training and Research
Center, Epes, AL
National Alliance of Farmworker Women, Oxnard, CA National Family
Farm Coalition, Washington, DC National Hmong American Farmers, Inc.,
Fresno, CA
National Latino Farmers and Ranchers Trade Association, Washington,
DC
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Washington, DC
North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers Land Loss Prevention
Project, Durham, NC
21st Century Youth Leadership Movement, Eutaw, Alabama Alabama
State Association of Cooperatives, Forkland, AL Albany Food Justice
Coalition, Albany, NY
American Federation of Government Employees Local 3354, St. Louis,
MO
American Indian Mothers Inc., Shannon, NC
Arkansas Land and Community Development Corporation, Brinkley, AR
Ashtabula, Geauga, Lake Counties Farmers Union (Ohio), OH Atrisco
Land Grant, Atrisco, New Mexico
California FarmLink, Santa Cruz, CA
Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, Pittsboro, NC CASA del
Llano, Hereford, TX
Center for Social Inclusion, New York, NY Citizens For Water, New
York, NY
Colorado Latino Farmers and Ranchers, Antonito, CO
Concerned Citizens of Wagon Mound and Mora County, Wagon Mound, NM
Dakota Rural Action, Brookings, SD
Damascus Citizens for Sustainability, Milanville, PA
Delgado Farms, El Paso, TX
Ecohermanas, Washington, DC
Environmental Justice and Health Alliance for Chemical Policy
Reform, Washington, DC
Fair World Project, Portland, OR
Farmworker Association of Florida, Apopka, FL
Fernandez Ranch, Centerville, WA FOCUS Churches of Albany, Albany,
NY
Food Chain Workers Alliance, Los Angeles, CA Grassroots
International, Boston, MA
Hmong National Development, Inc., Washington, D.C. Hunger Action
Network of New York State, New York, NY
Indian Country Agriculture and Resource Development Cooperation,
Anadarko, OK Indian Nations Conservation Alliance, Twin Bridges, MT
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, MN Land
Stewardship Project, MN
Latino Economic Development Center, Minneapolis, MN Local Matters,
Columbus, OH
Los Jardines Institute (The Gardens Institute), Albuquerque, NM
Maine Rural Partners, Orono, MAINE
Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, East Troy, WI Mississippi
Association of Cooperatives, Jackson, MS
Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society, Ceresco, NE
Northern New Mexico Stockmans' Association, Espanola, New Mexico
Northwest Farm Bill Action Group, Seattle, WA Northwest Forest
Worker Center, Albany, CA NYH2O, New York, NY
Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project, Inc., Oklahoma City, OK
Operation Spring Plant, Inc., Oxford, NC Orangeburg County Young
Farmer, Orangeburg, SC Pesticide Action Network, Oakland, CA
Pululu Farms, Arroyo Seco, NM
Quote...Unquote, Inc, Albuquerque, NM Roots of Change, Oakland, CA
Rural Advancement Fund, Orangeburg, SC
Rural Development Leadership Network, New York, NY
San Diego 1 in 10 Coalition, San Diego, CA San Diego Hunger
Coalition, San Diego, CA Slow Food California, Sacramento, CA
South Valley Regional Association of Acequias, Albuquerque, NM
Southwest Workers Union, San Antonio, TX
Taos County Economic Development Corporation, Taos, NM
Victory Garden Foundation, Oakland, CA Viva Farms, Burlington, WA
Western Sustainable Agriculture Working Group, Austin, NV
WhyHunger, New York, NY
Winston County Self Help Coop, Louisville, MS World Farmers, Inc.,
Lancaster, MA
[This statement was submitted by Lorette Picciano, Rural
Coalition.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Pickle Packers International, Inc.
concern for sustained and increased research funding usda/agricultural
research service
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 global competitiveness is too great for individual
companies to shoulder on their own.
Additional Budget Requests for fiscal year 2015
Funding needs for USDA/ARS laboratories are as follows:
I. 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......................................... 500,000
Total Program Enhancements Requested--Pickled $2,000,000
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 markers, genetic maps, and genome sequence
to expedite traditional breeding and increase efficiency.
--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.
a statement of concern for sustained and increased research funding
usda/agricultural research service
The pickled vegetable industry strongly supports and encourages
your committee in its work of maintaining and guiding the Agricultural
Research Service. To accomplish the goal of improved health and quality
of life for the American people, the health action agencies of this
country continue to encourage increased consumption of fruits and
vegetables in our diets. Accumulating evidence from the epidemiology
and biochemistry of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity
supports this policy. Vitamins (particularly A, C, and folic acid),
minerals, and a variety of antioxidant phytochemicals in plant foods
are thought to be the basis for correlation's between high fruit and
vegetable consumption and reduced incidence of these debilitating and
deadly diseases.
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.
applied crop genomics
The USDA/ARS has the only vegetable crops research unit dedicated
to the genetic improvement of cucumbers, carrots, onions and garlic.
ARS scientists account for approximately half of the total U.S. public
breeding and genetics research on these crops. Their 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 twenty other vegetables used by
thousands of vegetable growers. Their innovations meet long-term needs
and bring innovations in these crops for the U.S. and export markets,
for which the U.S. has successfully competed.
ARS scientists have developed genetic resistance for many major
vegetable diseases that is estimated at $670 million per year in
increased crop production, not to mention environmental benefits due to
reduction in pesticide use. New research 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.
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 markers, genetic maps, and genome
sequences to expedite traditional cucumber, carrot and onion breeding
and increase its efficiency. With this, new high-value vegetable
products based upon genetic improvements developed by our USDA
laboratories can offer vegetable processors and growers expanded
economic opportunities for U.S. and export markets.
quality and utilization of agricultural products & food safety
The USDA/ARS maintains a food science research unit that our
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. Major accomplishments include:
pasteurization treatments currently used for most acidified vegetables;
the preservation technology used for manufacturing shelf stable sweet
pickles; and fermentation technology (purging) used to prevent the
formation of air pockets within fermented pickles. With the passage of
the Food Safety Modernization Act, commercial producers of acidified
foods must prove that they meet critical limits established for
microbial safety. USDA-ARS has supplied technical expertise and the
scientific data needed to define safe processing conditions for
domestic and imported pickled vegetable products, saving considerable
expense to the industry for microbial challenge studies. These data are
currently used to support required process filings, and have helped
establish a scientific basis for acidified food regulations. Additional
funding is needed to support the important research initiatives
detailed below.
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 50s. 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 and bulk
acidification. Calcium substitution of salt in commercial vegetable
processing has the potential to significantly reduce chloride levels in
waste waters and sludge currently delivered to landfills; and create
opportunities to manufacture healthier, calcium enriched, reduced
sodium 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, the market of refrigerated vegetable products is rapidly
growing in the U.S. These products are attractive to conscientious
customers targeting healthier, beneficial and bioactive food
formulations. Fermented vegetables presented in the refrigerated sector
deliver natural microbiota perceived as probiotic bacteria by a growing
market. New processing technologies and knowledge of the intrinsic
value of the natural microbiota in fermented vegetables are needed to
develop genuine, high value, probiotic vegetable products that provide
health benefits for the average U.S. citizen.
specialty crops
The USDA/ARS conducts research on the development of innovative
technologies for rapid, nondestructive measurement and grading of
fruits and pickling vegetables to enhance product quality and
marketability and achieve labor cost savings. The research program is
nationally and internationally recognized for its pioneering research
and development and technology transfer effort in imaging and
spectroscopic inspection technologies, which have found wide
applications in food quality and safety inspection. Currently, ARS
researchers are developing a spectral imaging-based common inspection
platform and other related sensing technologies with substantially
improved capabilities for quality evaluation and grading of pickling
vegetables and fruits at the processing facility and in the field.
Development of new and/or improved sensing technologies will help
growers and processors assess, monitor, inspect, and grade pickling
vegetables and horticultural products rapidly and accurately for
internal and external quality characteristics at various steps of
harvest and postharvest handling and processing operations. This will
minimize postharvest losses of food that has already been produced,
ensure high quality, consistent final product and consumer
satisfaction, and reduce production cost. Expansion of the USDA/ARS
research in food quality sensing and automation is critically needed,
so that it can develop and deliver these much needed technologies to
the specialty crop industry.
emerging disease of crops
USDA/ARS vegetable research addresses national problems confronting
the vegetable industry of the southeastern U.S. 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. Programs
currently address 14 crops, including those in the cabbage, cucumber,
and pepper families, all of major importance to the pickling industry.
USDA/ARS research is recognized world-wide, and its accomplishments
include over 150 new vegetable varieties and many improved management
practices.
Expansion of this program would directly benefit the southeastern
vegetable industry. Vegetable growers depend heavily on synthetic
pesticides to control diseases and pests. Without the availability of
certain pesticides that have been eliminated for use, producers are
likely to 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 resistant varieties continues to be
absolutely essential. This research can help provide U.S. growers with
a competitive edge they need 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 which has caused considerable
damage to commercial cucumber production in eastern states in recent
years. A new plant pathologist position 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 U.S. now enjoys and to increase
funding levels as warranted by planned expansion of research projects
to maintain U.S. competitiveness. 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.
It is important to note that fiscal year 2013 Enacted funding for
USDA/ARS laboratories totaled $10,212,000. However, fiscal year 2013
Enacted funding for all cucurbits equaled just $3,665,000 with only
$1,876,000 directed toward cucumber and pickled vegetable research. For
fiscal year 2015, PPI is requesting an additional $2,000,000 in program
enhancements that will provide needed research for cucumber and pickled
vegetables.
emerging disease of crops
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 eastern 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
2013Enacted........................... $425,000
2014 Estimate......................... $425,000
2015 (Proposed budget)................ To be determined
2015 Additional Request (Plant $500,000
Pathologist & support).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quality and utilization of agricultural products and food safety
The current funding includes research and development for a variety
of vegetable products, including fermented and acidified vegetables.
For 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 of $500,000. This will provide support for Post-Doctoral or
Pre-Doctoral research associates along with necessary equipment and
supplies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2013 Enacted.......................... $599,000
2014 Estimate......................... $599,000
2015 (Proposed budget)................ To be determined
2015 Additional Request (Post-doctoral $500,000
and Pre-doctoral Research Associate &
support).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLIED CROP GENOMICS
Emerging and persisting diseases, such as downy mildew,
southern root knot nematode, and angular leaf spot of cucumber,
threaten production of the crop in all production areas. We
request an additional $500,000 to fully fund the scientists and
support staff, including graduate students and post-doctorates
for identifying and researching new sources of genetic
resistance to emerging diseases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year ............................
2013 Enacted.......................... $421,000
2014 Estimate......................... $421,000
2015 (Proposed budget)................ To be determined
2015 Additional Request (Post-doctoral $500,000
and Pre-doctoral Research Associate &
support).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
specialty crops
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 ............................
2013 Enacted.......................... $145,000
2014 Estimate......................... $145,000
2015 (Proposed budget)................ To be determined
2015 Additional Request (Research Engineer $500,000
& support).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Prepared Statement of the Rural Cooperative Development Grant (RCDG)
CooperationWorks! is requesting the Rural Cooperative Development
Grant (RCDG) program of USDA's Rural Business--Cooperative Service be
continued in the fiscal year 2015 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
The President's fiscal year 2015 budget request, like the previous
fiscal year 2014 budget request, contains a proposal to eliminate a
number of rural development programs, including the Rural Cooperative
Development Grant (RCDG) program, and consolidate them into a new $57.5
million economic development grant program. CooperationWorks! is
seriously concerned with the elimination of the only program in the
Federal government focused on the development of cooperative
enterprise, providing needed technical assistance for cooperative
expansion and start-up. The consolidation of the RCDG program in our
view will diminish the agency's focus and mission of supporting the
advancement of self-help programs, and cooperatives specifically, and
further takes away the ability of Congress to establish priorities and
accountability for the programs that Congress has historically
authorized and funded.
As the only network of technical assistance providers in the United
States, connecting over 100 professionals in rural and urban areas
alike, covering all 50 states, CooperationWorks! expresses its strong
support for the Rural Cooperative Development Grant (RCDG) program and
encourages the committee to support it through funding in fiscal year
2015 and beyond that will continue to allow cooperative development
centers to operate and further expand its reach into more rural
communities to provide the types of technical assistance to
cooperatives that allow for economic growth and job creation. In
addition, we request for initial funding of a new interagency working
group that was created in the recent Farm Bill and which is to be
coordinated and chaired by USDA. This funding would help to further
efforts to foster cooperative development and ensure coordination with
Federal agencies and national and local cooperative organizations that
have cooperative programs and interests.
The RCDG program is a competitive grants program, administered by
USDA's Rural Development, Rural Business-Cooperative Services Program.
The primary objective of the RCDG program is to improve the economic
condition of rural areas by assisting individuals or entities in the
startup, expansion, or operational improvement of rural cooperatives
and other business entities. Grants are awarded competitively on an
annual basis to nonprofits or institutions of higher education that
operate cooperative development centers who provide technical
assistance to those seeking to form cooperatively owned businesses in
rural areas. The maximum grant amount that USDA provides in a fiscal
year is $200,000. There is a 25 percent cost share requirement of the
total project cost (5 percent cost share for 1994 Institutions).
Cooperative development centers currently serve rural communities in
all 50 states. They use the grants to fund critical technical
assistance for economic development, such as legal and accounting
assistance, feasibility studies, business planning, board education,
and other services that help ensure the success of these businesses.
We understand that in this current fiscal environment, Federal
funding is limited and Congress has to make tough spending choices. We
believe funding in the RCDG account is a sound investment toward rural
economic development and job growth for more Americans. Through outcome
surveys conducted among the RCDG recipients in our membership, which
includes over half of all RCDG funded centers, we found that in 2011
for every $1,362 in Federal dollars there was a result of one job saved
or created. This efficient use of program funds is possible because of
the matching funding requirement in the program, the self-help nature
of the cooperative business model, and the efficient use of funds
stewarded by RCDG program recipients.
[This statement was submitted by Tom Pierson, Advocacy Chair for
CooperationWorks!]
______
Prepared Statement of the Society for Women's Health Research (SWHR)
SWHR is pleased to submit written testimony to urge the Committee
to prioritize and provide an increase to the fiscal year 2015 budget
authority (BA) appropriations (non-user fees) for the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) of $2.784 billion, a $223 million increase over
fiscal year 2014 and $200 million above the President's budget proposal
for FDA. In addition, SWHR supports an allocation of $7 million for the
FDA Office of Women's Health (OWH) for fiscal year 2015. These
recommended allocations will allow the FDA to address resource
shortages across all centers, implement critical improvements in
infrastructure, and continue investment in OWH, the critical voice on
women's health and women's health research within the Agency.
The FDA, as regulator of products covering more than a quarter of
the US economy, should receive priority funding as its responsibilities
are critical to the health and well-being of all Americans. Each year,
Congress adds to FDA's ever increasing responsibilities but does not
provide appropriate funds to meet those demands reasonably, straining
the FDA's abilities. The fiscal year 2015 appropriations must reflect
an amount that meets the needs of the Agency demanded by Congress.
More than 47 percent of Americans have a chronic disease and 22
percent have multiple conditions. Eighty-two percent of Americans take
over the counter or prescription medications and 30 percent take more
than 5 medications. American consumers and patients expect proactive
scientific and research leadership from the FDA while demanding
assurance of the safety and effectiveness of their food, drugs and
cosmetics. To meet this expectation, the FDA spends over 80 percent of
its budget on salary costs in maintaining and recruiting talented and
smart researchers and scientists who can keep pace with scientific
innovation. Globalization and the complexity of our scientific research
world have put demands on the FDA that need additional appropriated
resources. Unfortunately, due to congressional funding levels and COLA
requirements, FDA annually is challenged and must frequently postpone
needed investments in infrastructure, technology, and human collateral
due to budget constraints.
While SWHR recognizes that Congress is focused on reducing our
Federal deficit, appropriate budgetary allocation must be provided to
allow FDA to react in a proactive manner for new scientific innovation
and against emerging or known threats to food and drug security. As the
thought leader in research on biological sex differences in disease,
SWHR is dedicated to transforming women's health through science,
advocacy, and education and believes that sustained funding for the FDA
and its regulatory responsibilities is absolutely essential if the U.S.
is to meet the needs of its citizens, especially women, and maintain
its gold standard.
In the past two decades, scientists have uncovered significant
biological and physiological differences between men and women.
Traditionally, the term women's health represented a women's
reproductive capability because science and medicine believed that
women and men were biologically the same. We now know this is not the
case.
Biological and physiological differences and hormonal fluctuations
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. Information about the ways drugs may differ in
various populations, however, is often unexplored. As was noted by the
FDA in a recent The 60 Minutes segment (Feb. 9, 2014), women may
require a lower dosage of some drugs because of different rates of
absorption or metabolism (Ambien). The 60 Minutes highlighted the
importance of sex and gender differences research and the need to
examine sex from the earliest phases of research, starting in basic
science.
The FDA has a critical role in human subject research in assuring
female recruitment and retention is set at appropriate levels and not
too low to provide statistically significant results in research.
American women should have the confidence that drugs, devices and
biologics that have been approved for use in both men and women have
been appropriately analyzed for sex differences and the finding
publicly reported to a meaningful way for usage by both healthcare
providers and patients. America's biomedical development process, while
continuing to deliver new and better targeted medications to combat
disease, does not routinely analyze and reported sex differences. FDA's
must enforce its own requirement that the data acquired during research
of a new drug or device's safety and efficacy be reported and analyzed
by sex.
Pursuant to Section 907 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety
and Innovation Act of 2012 (FDASIA), the FDA released a report on
August 20, 2013 on the inclusion of demographic subgroups in clinical
trials and data analysis in drugs, biologic and device applications
submitted to the agency. The report, both the summary and the data,
coordinated and written by OWH and the Office of Minority Health (OMH)
demonstrated that while demographic data was submitted significant gaps
still existed with respect to representation, reporting and analysis of
the data for women, minorities and the elderly. The FDA is currently
designing an action plan, with short and long term recommendations and
implementation strategies to help FDA transform its approach toward
important demographic data. SWHR believes this will result in greater
knowledge of reactions to drugs and medical treatments by sex, age,
race and ethnicity, and further, greater understanding of devices and
their usage or limitations in women.
SWHR has long advocated that sex differences data discovered from
clinical trials be presented in a meaningful way to the medical
community and to patients through education, drug labels and packaging
inserts, and other forms of alerts directed to key audiences. Through
more accurate, sex-specific drug and device information and labeling
the FDA will better serve male and female patients, and will ensure
that appropriate sex specific data analysis of post-market surveillance
is placed in the hands of physicians and ultimately the patient in a
timely manner.
SWHR believes that Congress must commit to continued investment in
FDA's informational technology to assure continued advancement of data
standardization, collection and analysis. In our ever evolving digital
world, the FDA needs to keep pace with scientific discoveries and must
have the tools to do so. Congress must dedicate resources from
appropriated dollars and user fees to FDA's IT systems and
infrastructure to meet this demand.
fda office of women's health (owh)
OWH must have a steady and sustained investment to remain the key
resource in advancing regulatory science in women's health and
reporting of sex differences. OWH's programs 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. OWH seeks to correct sex and
gender disparities and monitors women's health priorities, through
leadership and active engagement with the FDA Centers.
American women rely on the tools OWH provides to them to help with
their healthcare decisions. Each year, OWH consumer pamphlets are the
most requested of any documents at the government printing facility in
Colorado, with more than 8 million distributed to women across America,
including target populations such as Hispanic communities, seniors and
low-income citizens on topics such as breast cancer screening,
diabetes, menopause hormone therapy, and medication use during
pregnancy.
In partnership with the National Institutes of Health Office of
Research on Women's Health, OWH created a website for an on-line sex
and gender course to provide additional educational tools for medical
practice and scientific innovation. Most recently, a third course in
the series will be going on-line. All courses offer free continuing
education credits for physicians, pharmacists and nurses. In addition,
OWH developed a toolkit and curriculum in a joint effort with the
American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. It is a Women's Health
curriculum elective given for credit by the schools and also contains a
tool kit so teachers can incorporate elements into other courses.
Further, OWH is a strategic partner in the planning of the research
roadmap for FDA, helping to align the research and structural needs for
the agency for the next 3 years.
Women across our great nation rely on OWH's high quality, timely
information to make medical decisions on behalf of themselves and their
families. OWH's highly regarded website is a vital tool for consumers
and physicians, providing free, downloadable fact sheets on over one
hundred 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. These are vital functions that our healthcare professionals
and the public understand and utilize daily to make healthcare decision
and must be maintained.
[This statement was submitted by Martha Nolan, Vice President,
Public Policy, Society for Women's Health Research (SWHR).]
______
Prepared Statement of the Southern Poverty Law Center
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) submits this testimony
regarding the dangers posed to workers and consumers by the pending
regulation proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service entitled ``Modernization of Poultry Slaughter
Inspection,'' 77 Fed. Reg. 4,408--4,456 (Apr. 26, 2012). If
implemented, this regulation threatens the health and safety of
thousands of poultry slaughter and processing workers. The rule is part
of the agency's overhaul of its food safety inspection program,
proposed changes that have been harshly criticized by food safety and
workers' rights advocates alike. The USDA's proposed budget for the
coming fiscal year reflects cuts to food safety inspection funds that
indicate intent to implement this ill-advised rule.
1. the usda's proposed rule puts workers and consumers at risk.
The FSIS's proposed rule would increase the already intolerably
fast speeds of the poultry slaughtering and processing lines throughout
the country, from between 70 and 140 birds per minute, depending on the
number of food safety inspectors, to a new maximum of 175 birds per
minute. Currently there is no state or Federal line speed standard
designed to protect the safety of workers who produce this food. The
USDA's regulations are the only limit on line speeds for this industry.
The Subcommittee's intervention to halt or amend this rule, and to
restore the funding needed to avoid its implementation, would protect
workers as well as consumers.
Numerous studies find strong correlations between rates of
repetitive motions and likelihood of musculoskeletal injuries such as
carpal tunnel syndrome, which suggests that faster speeds will increase
the risk of worker injuries. The SPLC believes that the rule must
therefore be withdrawn in its entirety. If the proposed rule is not
withdrawn, the USDA should at least incorporate meaningful and
enforceable work speed safety standards to protect plant employees from
repetitive motion injuries and other musculoskeletal disorders. The
rule should at a minimum be stayed until adequate measures are
incorporated into the regulations to ensure that the health and safety
of workers in poultry processing plants are protected.
The Southern Poverty Law Center and Alabama Appleseed Center for
Law and Justice recently published a report entitled Unsafe at These
Speeds: Alabama's Poultry Industry and its Disposable Workers,\1\
providing a unique inside look at the operation of poultry plants and
documenting health, safety, and other conditions affecting workers in
all positions in the poultry industry--from chicken catchers, live
hangers, and rehangers to deboners, skin pullers, and box stackers. The
data and information included in this report leaves no question that
the current line speeds are too fast and any regulation that increases
these speeds and allows the industry to regulate itself is
unacceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A copy of the report is available at: http://www.splcenter.org/
get-informed/publications/Unsafe-at-These-Speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama alone produces more than 1 billion broilers per year--
ranking it third among states behind Georgia and Arkansas. The broiler
chicken industry has an $8.5 billion impact on the state--generating
about 75,000 jobs and 10 percent of Alabama's economy--and one that
plays a vital economic role in numerous small towns. But it all comes
at a steep price for the low-paid, hourly workers who face the
relentless pressure of the mechanized processing line.
Nearly three-fourths of the 302 workers whom we interviewed
revealed that they had suffered some type of significant work-related
injury or illness, yet 68 percent felt that they could not ask their
supervisors to improve health or safety hazards. In spite of many
factors that lead to undercounting of injuries in poultry plants, the
employer-reported data collected by the U.S. Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) reflected an injury rate of 5.9 percent
for poultry processing workers in 2010, a rate that is more than 50
percent higher than the 3.8 percent injury rate for all U.S. workers.
The realities workers discussed with us demonstrate an ongoing
health and safety crisis in the poultry processing industry,
principally driven by the punishingly fast speeds at which slaughtering
and processing lines currently operate. Over three-fourths (78 percent)
of workers said that an increase in the line speed makes them feel less
safe, makes their work more painful, and causes more injuries. These
speeds are a predominant factor in the most common type of injuries,
called musculoskeletal disorders. The most common injuries suffered
involved debilitating pain in workers' hands and upper limbs, gnarled
fingers and other permanent changes to workers' bodies, cuts, and skin
and respiratory problems. Workers in jobs most sharply affected by
processing line speeds and the high rates of repetitive motions
reported the highest rates of musculoskeletal injuries. Plant workers,
many whom are immigrants, are often treated as disposable resources by
their employers. Threats of deportation and firing are frequently used
to keep them silent about injuries and abuses, even if they are United
States citizens or have lawful immigration status.
In light of these findings, we respectfully urge members of the
Subcommittee to use their oversight authority and ask the Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service to withdraw its
proposed rule entitled ``Modernization of Poultry Slaughter
Inspection,'' especially the provisions that would increase maximum
permitted line speeds to 175 birds per minute and replace independent
Federal food safety inspectors with plant employees already too
intimidated to ask for protections for their own health. If the
proposed rule is not withdrawn altogether, the Food Safety and
Inspection Service should, at a minimum, require plants that opt into
the new inspection system to permit the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health to conduct health hazard evaluations, as
the FSIS previously required in its Salmonella Initiative Program rule,
published at 76 Fed. Reg. 41,186. We further urge the Subcommittee to
restore funding to the USDA's budget to avoid implementation of the
proposed rule and to preserve food safety inspector capacity to
adequately inspect every chicken slaughtered for consumption as
required under the Poultry Products Inspection Act.
Increases in the speeds at which slaughter and evisceration lines
run put the safety of all categories of workers in poultry plants at
risk. First, the workers most directly affected will be workers known
as live hangers. These workers must pick up and hang every live chicken
arriving at a plant at a pace fast enough to keep up with slaughter
line speeds. A live hang worker often must hang 60 birds per minute.
Second, the proposed rule would in essence create a new job
classification of plant workers sorting carcasses for defects. These
workers would have to collectively review and sort 175 birds per
minute. USDA employees currently conducting this work already suffer
repetitive motion injuries and file workers' compensation claims as a
result.
This risk would be, if anything, heightened for plant employees now
assuming these duties. Third, rehang workers, who must hang carcasses
on shackles or place them onto cones for other workers to cut, debone,
or otherwise process, would face increased risks of repetitive motion
injuries. Fourth, while it is possible for processing lines that are
located after the area known as the ``chiller'' to operate at different
speeds from the slaughter and evisceration lines that are most directly
affected by the USDA's proposed rule, additional birds slaughtered at
new, higher speeds would still need to be processed within a limited
time of slaughter, making it unlikely that there would be no changes in
other areas of plants. As an example, an increase in a worker's rate of
motion by even just one bird per minute equates to approximately 480
additional cutting, trimming, hanging, or other motions in a typical
work shift, and to approximately 2,400 additional motions in a standard
work week, during which each worker already performs tens of thousands
of such strenuous motions. Even what may seem superficially like a
small increase in the burden on each individual worker may have long-
term and permanent disabling effects on her body.
2. niosh's recent health hazard evaluations found severe health and
safety hazards related to fast work speeds and repetitive motions, and
do not support implementation of a rule permitting increased line
speeds.
The SPLC particularly wishes to clarify the import of two recent
reports issued by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH). The USDA has stated to the public that NIOSH's health
hazard evaluation from a poultry processing plant in South Carolina
suggested that line speeds may be increased without adverse effect on
the health and safety of plant employees. However, NIOSH evaluated
conditions in a plant that did not increase work speeds and was not
implementing the same changes as USDA has proposed. The USDA should not
draw conclusions about what the results would be if the rule were
published based on a study of a plant operating under different
conditions.
The NIOSH report confirmed that poultry processing workers suffer
extraordinarily high rates of painful and often permanently crippling
injuries on the job and validates the fact that fast work speeds pose a
serious risk to workers' health and safety. It evaluated working
conditions at one plant in South Carolina--a plant not operating in the
agency's HIMP pilot program. The plant was evaluated after it requested
a waiver from the USDA to combine two evisceration lines into one.
USDA should not use an evaluation showing consistently dangerous
conditions related to work speed in a plant where work speeds remained
steady to justify letting companies increase such speeds elsewhere. Key
differences in the operations of the plant evaluated for this report
and plants that will implement the rule when it is finalized make
comparisons impossible. It is inaccurate for the USDA to conclude that
NIOSH's study shows no effect from a line speed increase. The key
differences include:
--NIOSH did not test the effects of an increase in work speed at the
South Carolina plant.
--The number of birds processed per minute by each worker did not
change.
--The South Carolina plant did not make the same types of line-
related changes that plants will likely make under the USDA's
proposed rule.
--Following the initial NIOSH evaluation, the plant reconfigured its
evisceration lines from two lines to one, but did not increase
work speeds.
What the NIOSH poultry plant evaluation does clearly show are
extraordinarily high levels of crippling injuries at current work
speeds. For example:
--42 percent of workers in the evaluation had evidence of painful and
often permanently disabling carpal tunnel syndrome.
--Moderate or severe mononeuropathy, a type of nerve damage, was
found in 80 percent of workers with carpal tunnel syndrome.
--Reports of hand or wrist symptoms of musculoskeletal disorders from
workers on the evisceration line increased from 53 percent of
the workers to 62 percent after the evisceration line
reconfiguration.
The employer also failed to implement NIOSH's recommendations for
better protecting worker safety and health, including reducing
repetition and hand and wrist activity in job tasks to reduce carpal
tunnel syndrome. In its final report, NIOSH again recommends that the
employer design job tasks so that they are below the recommended
threshold limits to minimize the risk for developing carpal tunnel
syndrome. NIOSH specifically recommends ``reducing the speed of all
cone lines to reduce repetition.''
The findings of the recent NIOSH report do not justify the USDA
moving forward with its proposed rule to increase evisceration line
speeds and the removal of food safety inspectors from those lines.
3. conclusion
A central aspect of any effort to ``modernize'' the poultry
industry must be an end to the epidemic of repetitive motion injuries.
This could be accomplished by limiting line speeds and the number of
repetitions required of workers; by enforcing rights to bathroom and
other rest breaks; and by requiring other ergonomically sound
practices. These minimal worker safety protections must not be
sacrificed. The health and safety of these workers should be of utmost
concern to this Subcommittee and the agencies it oversees. This is why
the SPLC, along with Nebraska Appleseed and a total of fifteen civil
rights and workers' rights organizations, filed a formal rulemaking
petition with OSHA and the USDA on September 3, 2013 calling for these
agencies to promulgate a clear, enforceable, and slower work speed
safety standard in meat and poultry processing plants.2 We have yet to
receive a formal response from either agency.
We thank you for this opportunity to discuss our findings, the
problems they pose, and possible solutions.
[This statement was submitted by Tom Fritzsche, Staff Attorney,
Southern Poverty Law Center, Immigrant Justice Project.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Society
The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to submit
testimony concerning the fiscal year 2015 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 was founded in 1937 and is a non-profit
scientific and educational association representing nearly 10,000
professional wildlife biologists and managers dedicated to excellence
in wildlife stewardship through science and education. Our mission is
to represent and serve the professional community of scientists,
managers, educators, technicians, planners, and others who work
actively to study, manage, and conserve wildlife and habitats
worldwide. 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. In fiscal year
2015, the budget proposal includes funding to continue a national feral
swine control program, working cooperatively with the States currently
experiencing issues with feral swine. In recognition of the important
work that Wildlife Services performs regarding methods development and
wildlife damage management, we request that Congress support the
President's request of $106 million to Wildlife Services in fiscal year
2015.
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 $19 million in fiscal year
2015.
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 resources 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 $34 million
in fiscal year 2014 and urge that amount to be continued in fiscal year
2015, per the President's request.
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 fiscal year 2015 request for Conservation
Operations is $815 million. We urge you to provide $843.4 million for
Conservation Operations, which includes Conservation Technical
Assistance (CTA). Due to the General Services Administration's recent
decentralization of responsibility for making building rental payments,
the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) will for the first
time have to make rental payments out of the Conservation Operations
budget. NRCS expects to pay $28.6 million in rent in fiscal year 2015.
When this change is taken into account, the Administration's request of
$814.8 million for Conservation Operations would actually reduce the
amount of funding available for conservation operations by $26.6
million relative to fiscal year 2014.
Conservation Operation's Technical Assistance (TA) sub-activity
provides funding for NRCS to support implementation of the various Farm
Bill programs. The fiscal year 2015 budget proposal recommends $717
million in funding for TA, a slight increase from fiscal year 2014. The
Wildlife Society encourages you to support funding for TA at $717
million.
Overall, The Wildlife Society believes strong support for TA
delivery is needed. Implementing the changes in the 2014 Farm Bill will
require significant conservation planning and producer education
effort. In the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress showed strong support for the
use of mandatory funds for TA, though these funds can only be used in
association with a specific farm bill program. Appropriated funds for
Conservation Technical Assistance are still essential for NRCS to
provide good customer service and strong conservation results.
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.
After several years of negotiations, Congress recently passed the
Agriculture Act of 2014 with broad bipartisan support. This recently
passed Farm Bill renewed a suite of extremely popular and effective
conservation programs, but reduced mandatory funding by $4 billion. It
is critical that Congress ensure that all of direct spending on
conservation programs, as provided by the authorizing committees in the
Farm Bill, can be spent as Congress intended in fiscal year 2015. The
Wildlife Society recommends Farm Bill conservation programs be funded
at levels mandated in the 2014 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,
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 do have some concerns about the absorption of the Wildlife
Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP), a voluntary program for landowners
who want to improve wildlife habitat on their land, into the
Environmental Quality Habitat Incentives Program, as mandated by the
2014 Farm Bill. EQIP was funded at $1.374 billion in fiscal year 13 and
the President's fiscal year 2015 request is $1.35 billion. While at
least 5 percent of EQIP funds must go towards wildlife conservation, we
remain concerned that this $88 million decrease in overall funding
coupled with the additional program responsibilities due to the
absorption of WHIP could translate into lesser emphasis on critical
wildlife conservation efforts.
farm service agency
The Administration's request would slightly reduce funding for the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to $1.957 billion in fiscal year
2015. 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.
Thank you for considering the views of wildlife professionals. We
look forward to working with you and your staff to ensure adequate
funding for wildlife conservation.
______
Prepared Statement of the World Food Program USA
The World Food Program USA, on behalf of the world's hungriest
people, urges the subcommittee to provide the strongest possible
funding to US international food aid programs. Specifically, we request
the following fiscal year 15 funding levels for three programs within
the jurisdiction of the subcommittee:
--Title II Food for Peace--$1.84 billion
--McGovern Dole Food for Education--$209.5 million
--Local and Regional Food Purchase program (LRP) newly authorized in
the 2014 Farm Bill--$80 million (full authorized level)
There are 842 million hungry people in the world. Global hunger
threatens US international economic and national security interests.
Robust funding for the three United States international food aid
programs described in this testimony is vital to preserving US
leadership and encouraging other countries to contribute their fair
share in the fight against global hunger. The Senate Appropriations
Committee has been a leader over the years in ensuring adequate funding
for U.S. food aid programs. We encourage you to continue that proud
tradition of leadership for fiscal year 2015.
food for peace
Food for Peace provides emergency food and development assistance
to millions suffering from hunger and malnutrition. For the past 50
years, Food for Peace (FFP) has been the primary vehicle for providing
food aid in response to natural disasters, crises, and conflicts around
the world. Maintaining robust funding for Food for Peace Title II and
finding ways to stretch that funding further is imperative.
While the United States remains the largest donor of global food
assistance, the reach of U.S. food assistance has dramatically declined
due to a sharp net drop of over a half billion dollars in Food for
Peace programs since 2009. With the ongoing Syria crisis and emergency
food requirements in Africa and parts of Asia, global need will likely
increase in 2014 and 2015. Supporting FFP at $1.84 billion would allow
the U.S. to reach approximately 50 million people with lifesaving food
aid and maintain its global leadership.
FFP programs are the foundation of global efforts to confront
hunger and malnutrition. FFP includes emergency programs that keep
people alive through natural disasters, conflict, and food security
crises and nonemergency developmental programs that address underlying
sources of chronic hunger through multiyear investments in nutrition,
agricultural productivity and diversification of household incomes.
The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) is the largest US
food aid partner, implementing programs that account for roughly 90
percent of Food for Peace emergency food aid funding. WFP estimates
$6.2 billion will be required to fund its 2015 emergency food
assistance programs. Over $ 2 billion--about 1/3 of total WFP emergency
needs--will be required just for the humanitarian crisis in Syria and
Syrian refugees in neighboring countries. Needs will continue to
persist across Sub-Saharan Africa, including Ethiopia, Sudan, Niger,
Somalia, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Chad, as
well as in parts of Southwest Asia of interest to the US such as Yemen,
Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Food for Peace provides the bulk of funding for the US to
contribute its historical average of about 30 percent of WFP emergency,
relief, and recovery programs. Other countries provide over 60 percent
of the annual contributions to WFP, which means that US food aid
channeled through WFP helps leverage significantly additional
international assistance.
mcgovern dole international food for education and child nutrition
program
The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program provides U.S. agricultural products and technical
assistance for school feeding projects in low income, food-deficit
countries that are committed to universal education. The McGovern-Dole
program provides school-age children in poverty-stricken countries with
what is often their only full meal of the day and protects vulnerable
children, especially during times of natural disasters and economic
shocks.
Serving food at school helps solve chronic hunger and can be life-
changing for the world's poorest children. School meals also help get
students into the classroom, giving them an important key to a better
future: an education. In areas where enrollment rates for girls are
low, McGovern-Dole supported programs work with families and
communities to make it possible for more girls to attend school. This
sometimes includes giving girls take-home rations that encourage
families to send daughters to school and also benefit younger children
at home.
Girls' education has a powerful ripple effect on families and
communities. One study has shown that the more education girls have,
the less likely their children will be malnourished. School meals can
help break the cycle of hunger and poverty for the world's most
vulnerable children.
The UN World Food Programme calculates that $3.2 billion is needed
per year to reach all 66 million primary school-age children that go to
school hungry every day. While an investment of $209.5 million for
school feeding represents a small fraction of overall global investment
in school feeding programs by donor and host country governments, U.S.
resources remain critical for low-income countries to continue school
feeding programs. We urge the committee to fund the McGovern-Dole
program at a level of $209.5 million in fiscal year 15.
local and regional food procurement program
We recommend fully funding the Local and Regional Procurement (LRP)
Program which was newly authorized at $80 million in the Agricultural
Act of 2014. Senate leadership in the 2014 Farm Bill conference was
essential to authorizing this new program. We hope Senate appropriators
will be equally visionary in funding the LRP program implementation.
Rigorous analysis of the USDA Local and Regional Procurement (LRP)
Pilot Project has shown that, compared with traditional U.S. food aid
shipments, LRP practices typically enable both emergency and non-
emergency assistance to be delivered more quickly, at considerable
savings, with the ultimate benefit of reaching larger numbers of
vulnerable people. LRP also generates important developmental impacts
by spurring local economic activity and helping form and strengthen
local markets.
The 2014 farm bill conference report's statement of managers
affirms that the intent of LRP programming is to complement existing
food aid programs, especially the McGovern-Dole Food for Education
program. Linking the new USDA LRP program to the McGovern-Dole program
improves the chances of long-term sustainability of school-feeding
programs supported by McGovern-Dole. A fundamental objective of U.S.
support to international school feeding is for countries to eventually
take over, manage, and fund their own school-feeding programs. This
means developing locally sustainable systems for the purchase and
management of food used in school-feeding programs to move away over
time from reliance on U.S.-donated commodities. U.S. support for LRP
can help countries make that transition to national ownership. Funding
the newly authorized LRP program would provide McGovern-Dole supported
programs with an LRP option that currently does not exist.
In order to encourage the link between the new LRP program and
McGovern-Dole, WFP USA recommends the committee include the following
language in its fiscal year 15 Appropriations bill report.
suggested report language:
``Funds appropriated for Local and Regional Procurement are
expected to be used for programs and activities that complement the
existing McGovern-Dole Food for Education program.''
[This statement was submitted by Richard Leach, President, World
Food Program USA]
______
Prepared Statement of the U.S. National Arboretum (USNA)
increased financial support is necessary at the u.s. national arboretum
The US National Arboretum (USNA), located in northeast Washington,
DC, is part of the Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville Unit. The
USNA conducts wide-ranging basic and developmental research on trees,
shrubs, turf, and floral plants. It is also engaged in the development
of new technologies for the floral and nursery industries. The Friends
of the National Arboretum request funding sufficient to recover support
lost to sequestration and other reductions over the past few years.
Gardens are a signature feature of the USNA. Single-genus groupings
include: azalea, boxwood, daffodil, daylily, dogwood, holly, magnolia,
and maple. Major garden features include: aquatic plants, the Asian
Collections, the Fern Valley Native Plant Collections, the Flowering
Tree Collection, the Flowering Tree Walk, the Friendship Garden, the
Gotelli Dwarf and Slow-Growing Conifer Collection, the Introduction
Garden, the National Bonsai & Penjing Museum, the National Capitol
Columns, the National Grove of State Trees, and the National Herb
Garden.
The budget for the Arboretum has steadily eroded over the past
decade. The budget for the USNA prior to sequestration was $12.1
million, nearly a million dollars below its highest level of funding.
As a consequence of additional reductions, the current level of funding
is about $11.1 million, requiring the facility to be closed to visitors
during the week and making it impossible to sustain its full research,
education, and visitor responsibilities. The Friends of the National
Arboretum are requesting an increase in resources for USNA to enable it
to restore its level of research and education, and become a premier
visitor destination in the Nation's Capital.
the arboretum contributes to the agricultural economy
The USNA is an important facility for the USDA's fundamental
missions of research and education on horticultural and nursery issues,
and serves as an important tourism and visitor destination in the
Nation's Capital. Nurseries and horticulture are major components of
the national agricultural economy. According to the American Nursery
and Landscape Association, the horticulture industry's production,
wholesale, retail, and landscape service components have annual sales
of $163 million, and sustain over 1,150,000 full and part-time jobs.
To serve this industry, the USNA conducts a wide-ranging program of
basic and developmental research on trees, shrubs, turf, and floral
plants. The Arboretum is also engaged in the development of new
technologies for the floral and nursery industries. The staff also
participates in the development of plants with superior characteristics
through a program of testing and genetic improvement. They are actively
involved in the taxonomy and nomenclature of ornamental plants and
their wild relatives. Finally, USNA staff are leaders in the collection
and preservation of plant germplasm with ornamental potential.
As a consequence of their work, the USNA has contributed 678
official plant releases, eight patents and two EPA biopesticide
registrations. In addition, USNA staff have published over 150
scientific articles in professional and trade journals in the last 3
years.
An important aspect of the Arboretum's leadership role in
horticultural research is its cooperative research relationships with
land grant schools and associations across the country. Cooperative
relationships exist with Alfred State University, Auburn University,
Brooklyn Botanic Garden, Cornell University, Danforth Plant Science
Center, Iowa State University, Michigan State University, National
Turfgrass Federation, North Carolina State University, Oklahoma State
University, Oregon State University, Rutgers University, Tennessee
State University, University of Arizona, University of California,
University of Connecticut, University of Florida, University of
Georgia, University of Maryland, University of Minnesota, University of
Missouri, University of Tennessee, University of Utah, University of
Wisconsin, USDA Forest Service, US Golf Association, and Washington
State University.
the national arboretum has important education and visitor
responsibilities
USNA has an important role in public education about horticulture
through symposia, lectures, workshops, and demonstrations plus plant,
flower, and art exhibitions; In addition, the Arboretum has been a
pioneer in urban gardening through the Washington Youth Garden (WYG), a
program of FONA that has, for the past 40 years has inspired children
and families to engage in self-discovery, explore relationships with
food and the natural world, and contribute to the health and well-being
of their communities.
The USNA is part of the largest contiguous parcel of greenspace in
Washington, DC, free to all and interesting through all of the seasons
of the year. It offers a place for quiet contemplation and to explore
nature in the backyard of the Nation's Capital. The Arboretum is also a
significant visitor and tourist destination in Washington, with
visitors making special trips to enjoy the National Bonzai Museum, the
National Herb Garden, the Capitol Columns, the azalea and boxwood
collections, and the Asia Collections. The USDA is currently working
with the State Department and the Peoples Republic to build a
traditional China Garden on the grounds of the Arboretum.
fona urges the committee to provide more resources to the usna
Budget cuts have reduced the ability of the Arboretum staff to
provide adequate maintenance and upkeep on the grounds, has restricted
valuable research programs, has restricted the educational role of the
USNA, and has limited the days that the USNA is open to tourists and
visitors.
The Arboretum and FONA have completed a new strategic plan for the
USNA that lays out a roadmap for achieving significant goals for
research, education, and visitation. Progress on moving forward on this
plan has stalled due to the budget cuts at the USNA.
The Friends of the National Arboretum is a 501(c)(3) organization
dedicated to working with the USDA and the USNA to achieve the goals
embodied in the strategic plan through programs of ``friend raising'',
fund raising, and advocacy.
We respectfully request that Congress provide resources sufficient
to enable the USDA and the USNA to advance the goals of the strategic
plan, and to open the doors of the Arboretum to visitors for additional
days each week.
[This statement was submitted by Ms. Barbara Shea, Chair, Friends
of the National Arboretum.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
Page
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Prepared Statement of the
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Coalition,
Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 120
Alliance for a Stronger FDA, Prepared Statement of the........... 120
American:
Commodity Distribution Association, Prepared Statement of the 122
Farm Bureau Federation, Prepared Statement of the............ 124
Honey Producers Association and American Beekeeping
Federation,
Prepared Statement of the.................................. 126
Society:
For:
Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the
Nutrition, Prepared Statement of the................. 134
Of:
Agronomy, Prepared Statement of the.................. 128
Plant Biologists (ASPB), Prepared Statement of the... 136
Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............. 138
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 153
Blunt, Senator Roy, U.S. Senator from Missouri:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 56
Statements of
Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform (CCAR), Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 141
Catholic Relief Services, Prepared Statement of the.............. 142
Center for Science in the Public Interest, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 145
Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 146
Choose Clean Water, Letter From the.............................. 148
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 64
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 149
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Prepared Statement of the............ 151
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 152
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator from California,
Questions
Submitted by................................................... 49
Fong, Hon. Phyllis K., Office of Inspector General, Department of
Agriculture.................................................... 79
Friends of Agricultural Research, Prepared Statement of the...... 154
Glauber, Dr. Joseph, Chief Economist............................. 1
Hamburg, Hon. Dr. Margaret, Commissioner, Food and Drug
Administration, Department of Health and Human Services........ 85
Prepared Statement of........................................ 90
Summary Statement of......................................... 88
Hoeven, Senator John, U.S. Senator from North Dakota, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 75
International Walking Horse Association (IWHA), Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 156
Meds & Food for Kids (MFK), Prepared Statement of the............ 158
Moran, Senator Jerry, U.S. Senator from Kansas, Questions
Submitted
by............................................................. 70
Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 76
National:
Affordable Housing Management Association (NAHMA), Prepared
Statement of the........................................... 159
Animal Health Laboratory Network, Prepared Statement of the.. 160
Farmers Union, Prepared Statement of the..................... 161
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Prepared Statement of the. 163
Multiple Sclerosis Society, Prepared Statement of the........ 165
Wildlife Federation, Prepared Statement of the............... 166
Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC), Prepared Statement of the 167
Organic Trade Association (OTA), Prepared Statement of the....... 170
Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged and Veteran
Farmers and Ranchers, Prepared Statement of the................ 172
Pickle Packers International, Inc., Prepared Statement of the.... 175
Pryor, Senator Mark L., U.S. Senator from Arkansas:
Opening Statements of
Questions Submitted by....................................... 30
Rural Cooperative Development Grant (RCDG), Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 180
Society for Women's Health Research (SWHR), Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 181
Southern Poverty Law Center, Prepared Statement of the........... 183
U.S. National Arbboretum (USNA), Prepared Statement of the....... 189
Vilsack, Hon. Thomas J., Office of the Secretary, Department of
Agriculture:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 5
Summary Statement of......................................... 3
Wildlife Society, Prepared Statement of the...................... 185
World Food Program USA, Prepared Statement of the................ 187
Young, Michael, Director, Office of Budget and Programs Analysis. 1
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Page
2014 Farm Bill................................................... 9
Additional Committee Questions................................... 29
Active Personal Management....................................... 21
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service....................... 34
Agriculture:
Buildings and Facilities..................................... 30
Research..................................................... 18
Research Service............................................. 30
Research Service Vacancies................................... 26
Antibiotic Use................................................... 52
Biotechnology.................................................... 48
Biotech Regulation............................................... 58
Brazilian Beef Rule.............................................. 70
Catfish.......................................................... 68
Catfish Inspection............................................... 37
Citrus Greening.................................................. 36
Commodities/Crop Insurance....................................... 64
Conservation..................................................... 67
Country Offices.................................................. 75
Country Of Origin Labeling
Program
Data:
Security..................................................... 12
Security in Agriculture...................................... 61
Dietary Guidelines............................................... 70
Disaster Assistance Payments..................................... 12
Department Initiatives........................................... 45
Direct Single Family Housing Loan Program........................ 42
Domestic Flower Growers.......................................... 54
Downed Non-Ambulatory Veal Rule.................................. 53
Drought.......................................................... 49
Energy........................................................... 68
Farm:
Bill Implementation.......................................... 56
Service Agency Modernization................................. 15
Farm-Vets Program................................................ 33
Federal Inspector's Training..................................... 54
Food and Nutrition Service....................................... 39
Food Safety
And Inspection Service....................................... 37
Inspection................................................... 62
Forest Service Issues............................................ 63
Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research.................... 31
FSA:
Office Closures.............................................. 10
Office Modernization......................................... 24
GIPSA Rule....................................................... 27
Horse Welfare.................................................... 55
Innovation Institutes............................................ 19
Inspector Shortage............................................... 37
International Agriculture Development............................ 60
Inter of Benefits--Goal 2........................................ 80
IT Investments................................................... 71
Lesser Prairie Chicken........................................... 14
Limited-Irrigation Crop Insurance Product Program................ 22
Livestock Disaster Programs
Made in Rural America Initiative................................. 47
Midas............................................................ 38
Management Improvement Initiatives--Goal 3....................... 82
Implementation............................................... 57
Program...................................................... 18
Milk Income Loss Contract Program................................ 11
Modernize and Innovate the Delivery of Agricultural Systems...... 12
National:
Animal Health Laboratory Network............................. 32
Institute of Food and Agriculture............................ 31
Safety and Security--Goal 1...................................... 79
Science Foundation........................................... 32
NIFA Grants...................................................... 33
Office Closings and Agency Reductions............................ 38
OIG Budget and Cost-Savings Initiatives..........................
PED Virus........................................................ 58
Poultry Slaughter Modernization.................................. 19
Program Reductions............................................... 35
Promise Zone Initiative.......................................... 46
Public Cultivars................................................. 24
Public Law 480, Title II......................................... 40
Regulatory:
Process...................................................... 28
Systems...................................................... 28
Rental:
Assistance................................................... 41
Assistance Program........................................... 20
Rural:
Corps........................................................ 44
Development
Electric User Fee............................................ 63
Specialty Crop Pest Program...................................... 54
Success #1: USDA Financial Management Systems.................... 73
Sun Grant Initiative............................................. 22
Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program.................. 43
Wetland Mitigation............................................... 76
WIC Food:
Costs........................................................ 27
Package
WIC Funding Increase............................................. 20
Universal Service Fund Reform.................................... 23
USDA Support for Farmers......................................... 13
__________
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Administrative Procedures Rule................................... 97
Animal Feed Rule................................................. 97
Artificial Pancreas.............................................. 107
Budget
Compounding Pharmacies
Deeming Rule
Drug:
Approval Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy......................... 111
Shortages.................................................... 110
E-Cigarettes..................................................... 94
Electronic Drug Labeling......................................... 114
Feed Rule........................................................ 109
Food Safety...................................................... 93
Modernization Act
Menu Labeling.................................................... 111
Mitochonolnal Diseases........................................... 112
Nanotechnology................................................... 114
National Center for Toxicological Research....................... 86
Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine--Spent Grains............ 106
Preventive Control Rule.......................................... 96
Produce Safety................................................... 100
Tester Amendment................................................. 101
User Fees........................................................ 104
Seizure Medication--Cannabidiol.................................. 108
Sequestered Fees................................................. 106
White Oak........................................................ 103
[all]