[Senate Hearing 113-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark L. Pryor (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Pryor, Udall, and Cochran.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
STATEMENTS OF:
ED AVALOS, UNDER SECRETARY, MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS
DR. CATHERINE WOTEKI, UNDER SECRETARY, RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND
ECONOMICS
DR. ELISABETH HAGEN, UNDER SECRETARY, FOOD SAFETY
KEVIN CONCANNON, UNDER SECRETARY, FOOD, NUTRITION AND CONSUMER
SERVICES
ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL YOUNG, BUDGET OFFICER
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARK L. PRYOR
Senator Pryor. I will call this hearing to order, and I
want to say thank you to all of our panelists, our witnesses
today.
This is the third hearing we've had on the subcommittee,
and today we're going to have a chance to really talk in detail
about some of the items in the budget for the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA).
I'd also like to thank Senator Cochran for standing in for
Senator Blunt today. Senator Blunt is in Missouri at a
commitment in his hometown that he committed to a long time
ago, and we understand how that goes. So he has left the
responsibilities in the very capable hands of Senator Cochran.
Of course, it's a delight to have Senator Cochran here. Not
only is he a true gentleman but also the former chairman of the
full committee, former chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, came here in 1979.
And, Thad, before I came in this morning, I looked at that
list of people that you came in with, and it's a very
impressive list of Senators that you came in with: David
Durenberger, Max Baucus, Nancy Kassebaum, of course, you, Rudy
Boschwitz, Alan Simpson, John Warner, William Armstrong, Bill
Cohen, Paul Tsongas, Larry Pressler, David Boren, Jim Exon,
Carl Levin, of course, Bill Bradley, Howell Heflin, Roger
Jepsen, Gordon Humphrey, and then this one guy named David
Pryor. I don't know whatever happened to him, but I don't think
he ever amounted to much.
But anyway, great class. And it's great to have you here.
And as everyone here knows, Senator Cochran is really one of
the giants of American agriculture.
Today, we have four Under Secretaries with us, and so I'm
going to be very brief in my opening statements. And I'll just
go ahead and introduce you here in just a moment, but I'd like
to welcome each one of you to the subcommittee. Well, I'll go
ahead.
Mr. Kevin Concannon, the Under Secretary for Food,
Nutrition and Consumer Services; Dr. Elizabeth Hagen, the Under
Secretary for Food Safety; Mr. Edward Avalos, Under Secretary
for Marketing and Regulatory Programs; and Dr. Catherine
Woteki, Chief Scientist and Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics.
The Under Secretaries here today represent a wide range of
activities carried out by the Department. Their combined budget
requests are nearly $12.4 billion in discretionary funding,
which is nearly 69 percent of USDA's total request for fiscal
year 2014.
The largest portion of that is for the nutrition programs,
which include the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program,
the largest single discretionary pot of money in the USDA. The
fiscal year 2014 budget for WIC is $7.1 billion. That's an
increase of $286 million from last year, without accounting for
the sequester. This will support an estimated 8.9 million
women, infants, and children per month in this country.
For the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the
budget actually requests a decrease from last year, again,
without accounting for the sequester. This is in large part due
to USDA's intent to finalize and implement a new poultry
slaughter rule.
This rule will refocus the efforts of the inspectors and
require fewer Federal resources. I look forward to talking a
little further with you all about this.
The budget request also includes a slight decrease for the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) but includes
a number of programmatic changes to address new and emerging
issues. I'm interested to hear how you plan to balance the
needs of new problems in this budgetary environment while
maintaining appropriate efforts on longer term issues.
The research budget this year has increased by
approximately $125 million with the vast majority of that
increase being provided through the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative, AFRI, at the National Institute of Food
and Agriculture (NIFA).
I'm always pleased to see increased requests for
agriculture research, and I think it's an important and sound
investment of taxpayer dollars.
Now we talked a bit about this last week, how our farmers
are going to have to produce more in the next 40 years. They're
going to have to produce more than they produced in all of
recorded history. The investments in research are what will
make this possible.
However, I would also like to say, briefly, I don't think
we should focus all of our attention on competitive research. I
think the land-grant universities and capacity programs funded
in this bill are vital to the work of America's farmers. They
allow for continued focus on local and regional problems and
issues faced by our producers, and they disseminate
information, so it can be used by everyone. We shouldn't lose
sight of their importance.
With that, what I'd like to do is turn it over to Senator
Cochran and would like to hear his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you for presiding over
this hearing this morning. I'm pleased to join you in welcoming
our distinguished panel of witnesses from the Department, who
are here to talk about the budget request for the next fiscal
year.
Nutrition programs are important, and they're contained in
the part of the budget that will be discussed this morning,
along with other activities, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, funding, and others.
We thank you for your service through your responsibilities
to the Department of Agriculture and to our consumers and
farmers nationwide. We appreciate your diligence and your
careful attention to our public responsibilities.
Thank you.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
And I thought what I would do is just, I guess, for ease,
just start over here with Mr. Avalos and just go down the line
here. So let's do 5 minutes for opening statements. Now, your
written statements will be part of the record, so if you want
to summarize and do it in 5 minutes, that would be great.
Mr. Avalos.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ED AVALOS
Mr. Avalos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Cochran. Thank you so much for the invitation to be here.
I'm just going to take a few minutes to talk about our
budget request. I have a statement that I do have for the
record. So anyway, I just want to highlight our request.
We are requesting a total discretionary appropriation of
$925 million. It's important to note that this is $84 million
less than 2009. It's $120 million less than 2010.
Now, we've cut expenses. We've created efficiencies. We've
reduced staff. We're very much on board for reducing Government
spending, for reducing the deficit. But we still have to do our
job.
At the Agricultural Marking Service (AMS), our budget
request was about $84 million. It includes additional money to
support rural communities by helping producers meet the growing
demand for local and regional foods; also funding to maintain
confidence in the organic label through enforcement and
compliance; and finally, to expand international markets
through equivalency agreements with countries such as Costa
Rica, Korea, India, and Germany.
At APHIS, our budget request is about $801 million. This
includes additional funding to establish a comprehensive
national feral hog plan. Feral hogs are an invasive species
found in 38 States. They spread disease and cause damage,
damage estimated at $1.5 billion.
Also additional funding to implement our new animal disease
traceability program. This program has buy-in from producers,
has buy-in from States, buy-in from the tribes, and it's
supported by trading partners.
And funding to eradicate the Asian long-horned beetle,
which threatens our hardwood forests, and the European
grapevine moth, which threatens the California wine and grape
industry.
The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
(GIPSA) request is about $40 million, and it's about making
sure the seller gets paid, about fairness in the marketplace.
And this is created by allowing our field agents to do the
necessary enforcement and compliance work.
On the grain side, we are requesting funding to purchase
critical equipment that we've been holding back for a long time
from purchasing. This is necessary to maintain the strong
domestic and international trade.
PREPARED STATEMENT
This concludes my opening remarks. I look forward to
working with the subcommittee, and I'm prepared to answer any
questions. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ed Avalos
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this subcommittee, I am
pleased to appear before you to discuss the activities of the Marketing
and Regulatory Programs (MRP) mission area of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and to present the fiscal year 2014 budget proposals
for the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).
Secretary Vilsack has stated that the Administration is strongly
committed to programs that create jobs and expand markets. MRP helps
accomplish this in a variety of ways. For example, AMS and GIPSA
certify the quality of agricultural commodities and provide industry
with a competitive edge earned by the USDA seal of approval for grading
and inspection. GIPSA also works to help ensure that livestock
producers have a fair and competitive market environment. APHIS
protects the health of plants and animals, enhancing the
competitiveness of U.S. producers by keeping production and marketing
costs low. All three agencies help resolve international issues to
maintain and open markets around the world for U.S. products.
MRP agencies have operated in an environment of tightened budgets.
We have accomplished this through proactive management of, if not
reductions in, staffing; internal reorganizations; office closures;
consolidation of telecommunication services; and reduction of travel
and other expenses. Further, we have prioritized our activities and
made decisions to eliminate or reduce programs that are not central to
our mission. In addition, APHIS has reduced involvement in combating
those pests where good progress could not be made with available means
or which are overshadowed by higher priority threats. Successful
efforts to eradicate pests, such as boll weevil and screwworm allow
savings as well.
Still, the MRP agencies have achieved significant accomplishments
that I would like to highlight. In fiscal year 2012, APHIS resolved 207
sanitary and phytosanitary trade issues, including opening new markets
and retaining and expanding existing market access for U.S.
agricultural products valued at $2.56 billion. This involved more than
50 countries and plant and animal products such as beef, cherries,
dairy products, grapes, live swine and cattle, peas and pulses,
potatoes, poultry, stone fruit, and many more. In fiscal year 2012,
APHIS personnel stationed overseas successfully secured the release of
324 shipments of agricultural products worth more than $41 million.
APHIS, working with California cooperators, reduced populations of
European grapevine moths (EGVM), so that detections numbered only 77 in
fiscal year 2012 compared with almost 101,000 in fiscal year 2010. EGVM
is a threat not only to producers in California but potentially to
those in 30 other States. APHIS has also achieved success in the animal
health sector. Subsequent to APHIS promulgating the animal disease
traceability rule in December, 2012, the Scientific Commission for the
World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) recommended that the U.S.
risk classification for bovine spongiform encephalopathy be changed
from the second-tier risk rating to the lowest risk rating that OIE
provides. Upon finalization, this will aid efforts to promote U.S.
cattle and beef products abroad.
AMS achieved notable accomplishments in fiscal year 2012 as well.
AMS purchased about $1.4 billion of food produced by America's farmers
and processors for domestic nutrition assistance programs. In response
to industry requests to improve procurement processes for canned and
frozen fruit and vegetable products, and to better meet the Food and
Nutrition Service's (FNS's) need to supply these products year-round,
AMS redesigned procurement programs in 2012 in a manner that won praise
from industry and FNS recipient agencies. AMS established the United
States-European Union Organic Equivalency Arrangement in June 2012,
which has opened up a $24 billion market to U.S. organic producers and
handlers. AMS also facilitated marketing of U.S. organic products to
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Costa Rica, China, Germany, and
Guatemala.
Finally, GIPSA had many noteworthy accomplishments. GIPSA closed
2,545 investigative files on potential violations of the Packers and
Stockyards Act in fiscal year 2012, compared with about 2,050 in fiscal
year 2011 and less than 580 in fiscal year 2000. In addition, GIPSA
also implemented use of new grain moisture meters based on technology
it developed in coordination with the Agricultural Research Service and
transferred to the private sector for commercial use. Two competing
manufacturers' moisture meters were subsequently approved by GIPSA,
which reduced significantly the price paid by the grain industry for
these instruments.
The 2014 budget requests total budgetary authority of about $2.4
billion for the MRP agencies, of which about $925 million is from
discretionary appropriations, more than $940 million from Customs
receipts, and about $435 million from fees charged to the direct
beneficiaries of MRP services. The discretionary appropriations request
for the MRP agencies combined is about $84 million less than the fiscal
year 2009 appropriation, a decrease of about 8 percent. Continuing our
efforts to address core mandates and high-priority needs while using
taxpayer resources as efficiently as possible, I would like to
highlight the budget requests for the MRP agencies.
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
The mission of AMS is to facilitate the competitive and efficient
marketing of U.S. agricultural products. AMS accomplishes this mission
through a wide variety of activities in cooperation with partners to
the benefit of U.S. producers, marketers, and consumers. The
President's budget request for AMS proposes a discretionary
appropriation of about $84 million and includes a small number of
important initiatives.
With additional funding for the Transportation and Market
Development Program, AMS will help producers respond to growing
consumer demand for local and regional food and expand their access to
markets through product aggregation, processing, and distribution. Such
efforts are intended to provide opportunities for smaller producers to
scale up, for mid-sized producers to serve a scale-appropriate market
segment such as institutions and grocers, and for producers of all
sizes to diversify their sales. Expanding local and regional food
systems in a community has been found to increase employment and income
in that community.
The budget also includes funding to assist the organic sector by
ensuring the integrity of the USDA organic seal and fostering new
organic equivalency agreements while taking actions, such as compliance
monitoring, to maintain existing agreements. As organic sales expand
and the number of certified operations rises, the National Organic
Program must have sufficient resources to accredit, audit, and oversee
the work of certifying agents, keep pace with violation investigation
and enforcement, and maintain and expand trade opportunities provided
by equivalency agreements.
An initiative under the Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program
(FSMIP) will assist producers in meeting the requirements of the Food
Safety Modernization Act. Under the FSMIP, AMS provides matching funds
to State departments of agriculture for projects aimed at improving
marketing efficiency, reducing marketing costs for producers, and
lowering food costs for consumers.
The budget requests funding from section 32 for USDA's Web-Based
Supply Chain Management (WBSCM) system to begin a technical upgrade
that must be completed in 2015 to keep the system operating efficiently
and cost-effectively. AMS manages the WBSCM system, which has improved
the procurement, delivery, and management of more than 200 foods (4.5
million tons) through domestic and foreign feeding programs
administered by AMS, FSA, FNS, FAS, and the United States Agency for
International Development.
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has a broad mission
that includes protecting and promoting the health of U.S. agriculture
and natural resources, administering the Animal Welfare Act, and
carrying out wildlife damage management activities. Together with
customers and stakeholders, APHIS enhances market access in the global
marketplace and helps ensure abundant agricultural products.
The budget request proposes discretionary appropriations of about
$801 million. In addition, existing user fees of more than $210 million
will support Agricultural Quarantine Inspection activities. The budget
proposes an elimination of funding for programs such as Johne's disease
and chronic wasting disease, which can best be managed at a local or
regional level. Increased cost-sharing will be requested from
beneficiaries of several pest programs related to specialty crops,
trees, and wildlife damage management; this allows lesser demand for
Federal taxpayer resources. These and other carefully considered
reductions, together with aggressive streamlining steps, allow us to
steward taxpayer resources and request a small number of increases for
our highest priorities.
Given promulgation of the final animal disease traceability rule,
the budget requests funding to support effective implementation. This
includes information technology systems to administer animal
identification devices, allocate location identifiers, and manage the
animal disease traceability information systems. APHIS will continue to
provide the premises identification systems to States and tribes that
wish to use them. Funding for cooperative agreements with State and
tribes to implement the program, provision of low-cost identification
tags, and other needs are included in the request.
Notably, the President's budget requests an increase to address the
growing problem of feral swine, which are estimated to cause $1.5
billion in damages that threaten animal and human health; crops and
livestock; rural, suburban, and urban properties; and natural resources
and native resources. APHIS will coordinate with other Federal, State,
and local entities to create a national program to address the more
than 5 million feral swine currently found in 38 States. With
populations of feral swine that have increased 21 percent annually in
recent years, prompt and nationally coordinated action is needed.
Additional resources are also requested for a variety of efforts.
For example, the budget includes additional funding to combat the Asian
longhorned beetle in Ohio and Massachusetts, and to eradicate EGVM in
California. To implement the APHIS rule to protect pets that are sold
over the Internet, by phone and by mail and that are currently exempt
from USDA oversight, the budget requests funds to identify such vendors
and conduct education and licensing activities.
GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION
GIPSA's mission is to facilitate the marketing of livestock, meat,
poultry, grain, and related agricultural products and to promote fair
and competitive trade for the benefit of consumers and American
agriculture. GIPSA fulfills this mission through the Packers and
Stockyards Program (P&SP) and the Federal Grain Inspection Service
(FGIS).
The budget proposes a discretionary appropriation of slightly more
than $40 million. About $23 million is requested for the P&SP while
approximately $18 million is for FGIS activities including
standardization, compliance, and methods development activities. The
budget also includes existing user fees of about $50 million for grain
inspection and weighing. The discretionary budget includes a request
for additional funding to allow the P&SP to facilitate market
protections for buyers and sellers of livestock and poultry through
greater compliance, investigative, and enforcement activities in the
field. Funds would provide equipment and other support expenses needed
for its field staff to effectively conduct regulatory and investigative
work. An increase for FGIS will allow it to purchase long-delayed
scientific equipment, which will provide advanced assessment of rice
characteristics and effective mycotoxin and pesticide residue testing
programs for U.S. grain exporters.
CONCLUSION
In closing, the budget request for MRP supports our key role for
the rural economy and for producers and consumers across the Nation. It
also reflects the comprehensive efforts we have taken to conserve
taxpayer dollars through targeted, common sense efficiencies. Any
further reduction in funding would significantly impair our ability to
deliver critical services and would imperil our efforts to manage an
increasingly complex workload with constrained staffing levels.
This concludes my statement. I look forward to working with the
subcommittee on the 2014 budget and will be glad to answer questions
you may have on these budget proposals.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Dr. Woteki.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DR. CATHERINE WOTEKI
Dr. Woteki. Well, good morning, Chairman Pryor, Senator
Cochran. It's a real pleasure to appear before you today and to
describe the budget request for Research, Education, and
Economics (REE). I'll summarize my written testimony and note
that USDA really has a very long history of enhancing rural
prosperity while helping to provide an abundant and diverse
food supply to rural America and to urban America.
One of the key ways that these goals are reached is through
our combined investment in research and education. And this
encompasses really cutting-edge research on genetics and
genomics, natural resources and environmental science, human
and animal nutrition and food safety, and local and global food
security. USDA has also invested in public education and
scientific literacy. And details on all of these are available
in our action plan widely available and posted on our Web site.
Last year marked 150 years of USDA and also 150 years of
the partnership that we have with the land-grant university
community that has been expanded to include historically Black
colleges as well as tribal colleges. And this research
partnership is really essential for bringing together the
research, the education and extension components.
Public investment in agricultural research is critical to
the innovations that keep our agricultural sector productive
and ensure positive benefits to our economy. For every $1 that
we invest in agricultural research, it returns $20 to the U.S.
economy.
For the REE mission area, the budget request for 2014 is
$2.8 billion for the four agencies that comprise the mission
area. I'm going to highlight some of the key proposed
investments for each of these four agencies.
For the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the budget
request is $1.28 billion. This will go to priorities that we've
identified such as centralizing ARS information technology (IT)
systems, improving production efficiencies through sustainable
agriculture, helping producers adapt to and mitigate the
effects of climate change, protecting crops at high risk of
infestation from insects, continuing the development of
alternative fuels, and building on ongoing research in the
Earth sciences.
In addition, in 2011, Congress directed ARS to study and
prioritize infrastructure investments. ARS's capital investment
strategy identified 21 low-condition facilities that housed
high-priority research programs that are in need of
modernization.
And the President's budget requests $155 million for the
number one priority, a replacement facility for the Southeast
Poultry Disease Research Laboratory in Athens, Georgia, where
we're currently conducting research on the avian influenza
strain H7N9 that's causing really human health as well as
animal issues in China.
USDA's extramural science and education is coordinated
through the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. The
budget request is $1.29 billion and does fund the land-grant
university system through a combination of capacity and
competitive funds.
As you noted, the President's budget request increased to a
total of $383 million for NIFA's flagship competitive program,
the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.
Finally, turning to the statistical agencies, the Economic
Research Service (ERS) and the National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS), the President's budget requests $78 million for
ERS. And this is research that addresses all aspects from an
economic perspective of the agricultural enterprise. Within
that is a request for $2.5 million for research innovations to
improve policy effectiveness, to strengthen behavioral
economics research, as well as the statistical uses of
administrative data.
Finally, for NASS, the budget request is just under $160
million. It will provide funding that will allow the completion
of the Census of Agriculture, as well as $117 million for the
agricultural estimates program.
The REE mission area has been looking to find
administrative efficiencies in the way we conduct our programs.
For example, we've cut travel spending by 52 percent below the
2010 level.
These are difficult times, we recognize. But as a Nation,
if we're going to maintain our leadership role in agriculture,
particularly as it relates to agricultural innovation and
productivity, we have an obligation to support research,
education, and extension activities.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you as we
continue to support a world-class level of science at the
Department of Agriculture, and to maintain and increase the
strength of American agriculture.
I'm looking forward to your questions, thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Catherine Woteki
Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Blunt, and members of the
subcommittee, my name is Catherine Woteki and I am the Chief Scientist
and Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics (REE) at the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). I am pleased to appear
before you to discuss the President's 2014 budgets for the REE mission
area agencies.
My testimony reflects the unwavering commitment of President Barack
Obama, Secretary Tom Vilsack, and all those who work at USDA to support
our Nation's farmers, producers, and consumers every step of the way
from farm to dinner table. USDA has a long history of enhancing rural
prosperity while helping to provide an abundant and diverse food supply
to urban and rural America. One of the key ways these goals are
achieved is through USDA's cutting edge research on genetics and
genomics, and natural resources and environmental science, nutrition
and food safety, and local and global food security. USDA has also
invested in public education and scientific literacy. Our Action Plan
is available to you at any time and can be found at http://
ree.usda.gov.
As you know, this commitment to science is one that USDA made long
ago. Last year marked 150 years since President Abraham Lincoln created
the Department of Agriculture along with the 150th anniversary of the
signing of the Morrill Act--the legislation that created our Nation's
network of land-grant universities. This partnership--which was
subsequently expanded in 1890 to include institutions serving the
African American community and in 1994 to include the tribal colleges--
is critical in the advancement of agricultural science in the United
States today. The internationally recognized Extension system that is
housed in these land-grant colleges and universities is an important
incubator for best practices in agriculture.
The challenges for the next several decades are clear: expanding
and delivering safe and nutritious food to a growing population,
keeping agricultural production profitable, bolstering agricultural
exports, reversing the obesity epidemic, and ensuring that our natural
resources remain available and abundant for future generations while
responding to the threat of a changing climate.
Scientific research is the cornerstone of agricultural production
and food security. Investing in agricultural research is critical to
the innovations that keep our agricultural sector productive, offset a
shrinking farm safety net, and ensure positive benefits to our economy.
Agricultural productivity is a key component of net farm income, which
last year was the second highest since 1980. Investments in
agricultural science will increase the productivity that is essential
for the long-term prosperity of our Nation. In fact, for every $1 spent
on agricultural research, $20 is returned to the economy. In tough
economic times, investing in agricultural science makes sense.
The challenge to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars is one
that the REE mission area takes very seriously. While each of our four
agencies serves a particular function and constituency, we also
coordinate our work to maximize Federal agricultural research funding.
REE mission area agencies collaborate closely with scientists and
researchers across the Federal Government, industry, academia, and
other stakeholders. These collaborations are particularly important in
conducting scientific research that is not cost-effective for farmers
or producers to undertake. Another benefit of collaboration is that it
reduces the duplication of research endeavors.
These are some of the key principles that have been brought to bear
as the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request for the REE mission
area was developed. This budget request reflects the belt-tightening
and prioritizing that many Americans have been forced to make in a
challenging economic climate. For the REE mission area, the budget
requests $2.8 billion for the four mission area agencies. I would like
to spend some time highlighting some of our key proposed investments
for 2014 budget.
For the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the President's 2014
budget requests $1.28 billion. Investing in several aspects of the vast
research agenda of ARS--from increases in important scientific topics
to responding to emerging priorities and to an aging infrastructure--
this budget request demonstrates the administration's commitment to
agricultural science.
For example, the budget request allocates $4.6 million to
centralize information technology (IT) systems in ARS. Ensuring robust
systems to capture, track, and compile data will go a long way toward
accelerating the pace of discovery and effectively explaining and
building upon ARS's scientific achievements. These investments will
also help reduce duplication and increase coordination of research
investigations by enhancing their transparency.
The 2014 budget request also provides funding for priority
initiatives that will improve production efficiencies through
sustainable agriculture ($10 million), help producers adapt to and
mitigate the effects of climate change ($10 million), protect crops at
high risk of infestation from insects ($6 million), continue the
development of alternative fuels ($5 million) and build on ongoing
research in the earth sciences ($4 million).
In addition, in 2011 Congress directed ARS to study and prioritize
ARS's infrastructure investments. The resulting ARS Capital Investment
Strategy identified 21 low-condition facilities that house high-
priority programs and that are in need of modernization over the next
decade. The President's budget requests $155 million for the number one
priority, a replacement facility for the Southeast Poultry Disease
Research Laboratory in Athens, Georgia. This laboratory is the
country's leading facility for research on emerging and exotic poultry
diseases, including avian influenza, and the request will enable ARS
scientists to advance this critically important area of research.
The National Agricultural Library has renewed purpose in the
digital age to facilitate research collaboration on interdisciplinary
agricultural problems among Government agencies, industry and academia.
The 2014 budget requests a total of $26 million to continue library and
information services, support a Government-wide Earth Observation and
Environmental Data Activities initiative, and develop and provide
unified and accessible data infrastructure capacity.
The above proposals represent investments in USDA's intramural
science programs. USDA's extramural science is coordinated by the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). The budget proposes
a total funding level for NIFA of $1.29 billion. NIFA funds capacity-
building programs--grants programs that support a variety of research,
education, and Extension initiatives at land-grant institutions--as
well as competitive grant programs to support scientists, researchers,
and educators from across our Nation that are awarded after a rigorous
peer-review panel selection process.
For 2014, the President's budget requests $383 million for NIFA's
flagship competitive grant program, the Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative (AFRI). AFRI's programs provide the largest investment in
agricultural science across a number of disciplines that touch every
aspect of American lives; from plant and animal health and production,
to agricultural systems and technologies, to bioenergy and natural
resources, to food safety, human nutrition, and health. Responding to
producer's concerns about the need for quicker response to emerging
problems, the President's budget includes a new Critical Agricultural
Research and Extension (CARE) Competition in the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative. The CARE Competition will permit us to address
emerging issues important to agricultural production.
To improve transparency and accountability, the President's budget
provides $7.8 million to consolidate and modernize NIFA's grant
management systems. This critical investment will allow NIFA to
accurately quantify its research successes and help track research
accomplishments as they transfer from the laboratory to our communities
and our homes.
As a former dean of agriculture at a land-grant university, I am a
strong proponent of ensuring that the bench is deep from which to draw
our next generation of farmers and scientists. The President's budget
reorganizes several Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)
programs administration-wide into the Department of Education and the
National Science Foundation, thereby transferring NIFA's STEM education
programs to those agencies. However, NIFA will continue to support
secondary and post-secondary students in other ways. For instance, AFRI
grants to university researchers routinely support fellowships to pre-
and post-doctoral students working with principal investigators on
these grants, representing about $6 million in fiscal year 2010.
Additionally, the President's budget proposes $9.2 million for
Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) Education Partnership Grants
Program.
Also, the 2014 budget requests $22 million for sustainable
agriculture, in particular, through the Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education (SARE) program. These funds will help SARE
grantees continue their important research, education, and extension
activities across the Nation. SARE grants focus on keeping American
agriculture profitable while ensuring that we can remain responsible
stewards of our environment.
In addition to intramural and extramural science, the REE mission
area provides a valuable service to not only other USDA mission areas
but also to America's agricultural producers, industry, academia, and
non-governmental organization (NGOs) through its support of two key
USDA research and statistical agencies, the Economic Research Service
(ERS) and the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).
The President's budget requests $78 million for ERS. ERS
anticipates and responds to the needs of decisionmakers by applying
economic and social science research to address all aspects of the
agricultural enterprise, from scientific investments to food access to
agricultural trade. For example, the President's budget proposes $2.5
million for ``Research Innovations to Improve Policy Effectiveness'' to
strengthen behavioral economics research and statistical uses of
administrative data. Behavioral economics research is based on the
concept that humans do not always make the most rational choices, but
instead are influenced by external factors like emotion or social
pressure. ERS intends to apply behavioral economics to analyze and
better understand food and agricultural programs and policies.
The 2014 budget requests nearly $160 million for NASS--which is
well known across the Nation by farmers, ranchers, and other producers
and processors, as well as the commodity markets. For the Census of
Agriculture that is conducted every 5 years, The budget request will
fully fund the Census at $43 million. The 2012 Census is currently
underway and close to 1.9 million responses have been received as of
early April. The results of the Census will be published in 2014 and
will provide data important to the agricultural industry as well as to
the administration of Federal programs. Farmers and commodity markets
have also come to depend on the impartial forecasts of NASS's
agricultural estimates that the agency compiles many times each year.
Mr. Chairman, the President's 2014 budget for USDA's REE mission
area builds on critical investments in agricultural science. Under the
strong leadership of Secretary Vilsack, we are continuing to leverage
our appropriations by streamlining processes and identifying
efficiencies throughout the Department. REE mission area agencies
collectively have reduced travel spending, on average, by nearly 52
percent below 2010 spending. We have provided retirement options for
those who are eligible and have greatly reduced hiring.
Mr. Chairman, these are difficult times. Like you, like the members
of this subcommittee, we understand that all too well. But if we, as a
Nation, are to maintain our leadership role in the world of
agricultural innovation and productivity we have an obligation to
support research, education, and Extension activities.
At a time when China and Brazil are ramping up their investment in
agricultural research, we cannot afford to let ours be gutted, or worse
still, be ignored.
It is too easy to take for granted the healthy, nutritious, and
safe foods that are available to us, the clean air we breathe, the
fresh water we drink, and even the clothes we wear. These are benefits
that have resulted to a large extent from the discoveries made by
Federal investments in agricultural science.
Scientific endeavors are not the kind of activity that we can put a
bookmark in and come back when funding is flush. Research requires
ongoing investigation and commitment.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you as we continue to
support a world-class level of science at the Department of Agriculture
to maintain and increase the strength of U.S. agriculture.
Thank you again for your time and I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Dr. Hagen.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DR. ELISABETH HAGEN
Dr. Hagen. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Senator Cochran. I'm Dr. Elisabeth Hagen, Under Secretary for
Food Safety at the USDA. I am pleased to appear here before you
in support of the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request
for the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).
FSIS is the public health regulatory agency responsible for
ensuring the safety of the meat, poultry, and processed egg
supply. Much of what we do is mandated by law, originating with
the Federal Meat Inspection Act, which passed in 1906, and
later in the 1950s with the passage of the Poultry Products
Inspection Act.
Much has happened since that time when our statutes were
enacted. And as our scientific understanding has increased,
we're constantly looking for better ways to protect consumer
from foodborne illnesses.
For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) data shows that, since the mid-1990s,
significant progress has been made in reducing the incidents of
foodborne infections from pathogens often associated with the
products that we regulate. However, disease rates from
Salmonella have remained stagnant. So reducing these illnesses
is a top priority for FSIS.
We must ensure that our inspection activities are aligned
with food safety risks. That is why, this past December, we set
new requirements for ground and comminuted poultry
establishments to reassess their hazard analysis and critical
control points (HACCP) plans to account for several recent
Salmonella outbreaks associated with these products. This
reassessment will increase the likelihood that companies will
effectively address the hazards that these products present and
that they will better prevent foodborne illness.
We've also finalized a baseline study that targets reducing
Salmonella rates in raw chicken parts. This baseline study
provides us with important data on the prevalence and
quantitative levels of Salmonella and Campylobacter in the
chicken products most commonly purchased by consumers.
Another important way for us to align inspection with risk
and reduce Salmonella rates is to modernize poultry slaughter
inspection. Our proposal focuses inspection on areas of poultry
production that will have the biggest impact on food safety.
Currently, many FSIS in-plant personnel perform quality
assurance tasks, such as looking for visible defects and
sorting birds.
If we adopt this proposal, FSIS would shift its focus to
critical food safety tasks, such as pathogen testing, verifying
HACCP and sanitation procedures. And the quality assurance
tasks will be turned over to the company.
The need for modernizing our food safety system is evident.
Scientific assumptions that existed when the Poultry Products
Inspection Act was first enacted in the 1950s are now outdated.
We must ensure that our regulatory tools correspond with
current knowledge and that we are able to tackle modern food
safety challenges. Updating what we do and where we focus will
help the agency prevent foodborne illnesses more effectively
and more efficiently as well.
In addition to improving food safety, we estimate that this
proposal would save taxpayers approximately $90 million over
the first 3 years of implementation, and would result in a
shared benefit to consumers and industry of about $250 million
annually.
In our continued effort to better protect public health,
we're also updating the way we collect and report data. We're
doing this through the implementation of the Public Health
Information System, which integrates our data sources to
support a comprehensive, reliable, and data-driven approach to
our inspection.
We must also align our in-commerce activities with current
risks. For example, FSIS is developing a proposed rule to
require retail operations to maintain accurate grinding records
of source materials and practices, and this would greatly
improve our ability to trace products from retail back to
slaughter facilities.
While most of our work is done in-plant, we recognize the
importance of good pre-harvest practices on the farm and safe
food handling at home. That is why we're actively engaged in
improving food safety across the farm-to-table continuum. For
example, we hosted a summit that brought together key
stakeholders to discuss pre-harvest practices that will reduce
the likelihood of contamination at slaughter. We're also
working with our Federal food safety partners to share best
practices.
On the other end of the equation, we provide consumers with
the tools they need to handle food safely at home. And we reach
them through mediums such as TV, radio, print, and social
media.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So in conclusion, I would say that we are continually
assessing whether we are doing the best job that we can do to
prevent foodborne illness in the most effective and the most
efficient way possible. Government can deliver better than
people expect, and we are committed to doing so.
I am proud to lead the FSIS workforce in the mission to
protect public health, and I appreciate the opportunity to be
here with you today and to answer your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Elisabeth Hagen
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Blunt, and members of the
subcommittee, I am Dr. Elisabeth Hagen, Under Secretary for Food Safety
at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
I am pleased to appear before you today in support of the
President's fiscal year 2014 budget request for USDA's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) and to discuss the status of FSIS programs.
The President's fiscal year 2014 budget request for FSIS includes
slightly more than $1 billion in appropriated funding. This funding
level ensures that we remain capable of performing our vital regulatory
mission to ensure the safety of meat, poultry and processed egg
products. The notable changes in the fiscal year 2014 budget request
include initial estimated savings from transition to the modernized
poultry inspection system and sufficient funding to continue
implementation of the Cooperative Interstate Shipment program.
Who We Are
FSIS is USDA's public health agency and is responsible for ensuring
that the Nation's commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products,
whether domestic or imported, is safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled
and packaged.
The dedicated men and women of FSIS all across the Nation are vital
to carrying out our mission. Of the 9,750 people that FSIS employed at
the end of fiscal year 2012, 8,678 of them were on the front lines
protecting public health in 6,263 federally regulated establishments,
in one of the three FSIS laboratories, at approximately 120 ports of
entry, and in 150,000 in-commerce facilities nationwide.
What We Do
Our mission is unique because much of it is mandated by law. FSIS
enforces the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry
Products Inspection Act (PPIA), which require the examination and
inspection of all livestock and poultry slaughtered and processed for
use in commerce for human food, with few exceptions. FSIS also enforces
the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA), which requires that
livestock be handled and slaughtered humanely. Livestock and poultry
slaughter operations cannot operate without the presence of inspection
personnel, and inspection personnel must also be present at least once-
per-shift per day for meat and poultry processing operations. During
fiscal year 2012, FSIS personnel inspected about 147 million head of
livestock and 8.9 billion birds at slaughter establishments nationwide.
In addition, under the Egg Products Inspection Act, FSIS inspects
processed egg products, which are primarily used as ingredients in
other foods, such as prepared mayonnaise and ice cream, and by the food
service industry, including hospitals and schools. During fiscal year
2012, FSIS personnel inspected about 4 billion pounds of processed egg
products.
FSIS also regulates all imports of meat, poultry, and processed egg
products intended for use as human food. In fact, before imports of
FSIS-regulated products are allowed, FSIS establishes the initial
equivalence of every exporting country's food safety regulatory system,
on a product-by-product basis.
In addition, FSIS cooperates with 27 States to develop and
administer State meat and poultry inspection (MPI) programs that
enforce food safety requirements that are ``at least equal to'' Federal
requirements at about 1,700 establishments. These establishments can
only ship or sell products within their State.
FSIS has also entered into cooperative interstate shipment
agreements with three States--Ohio, North Dakota, and Wisconsin. FSIS
signed its first agreement with Ohio on August 8, 2012, marking the
implementation of section 11015 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy
Act of 2008. FSIS signed agreements with North Dakota and Wisconsin on
January 11 and 14, 2013, respectively.
PREVENTING FOODBORNE ILLNESS
In addition to meeting our statutory obligations, we are constantly
looking for ways to better protect American consumers from foodborne
illnesses and evolve our methods to address modern food safety
challenges.
In September 2011, FSIS unveiled its Strategic Plan for fiscal year
2011 through fiscal year 2016, outlining strategies and measureable
goals to reduce foodborne illness. Since then we have taken a number of
very significant steps toward accomplishing these goals, which I'm
proud to share with you today.
On June 4, 2012, FSIS began testing for six serogroups of Shiga
toxin-producing E. coli--O26, O103, O45, O111, O121 and O145--in
addition to O157:H7. Between June 4, 2012, and April 29, 2013, FSIS
tested 3,531 samples of domestic and imported raw ground beef
components for non-O157 E. coli, and found 50 of those samples to be
positive.
Also, on February 8, we implemented our ``hold and test'' policy,
which means that since then, meat and poultry establishments have held
FSIS-sampled product from commerce until the test results have come
back negative. This new policy will help to prevent meat and poultry
products that test positive for dangerous pathogens from reaching store
shelves or consumers' tables. FSIS calculates that if this new
requirement had been in place between 2007 through 2010, nearly 20
percent of the meat and poultry recalls that occurred during that time
would have been prevented, because the product would not have been
released into commerce in the first place.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) most recent
Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) data shows
that since the 1996-1998 baseline was established, significant headway
has been made in reducing the incidence of foodborne infection caused
by pathogens often associated with FSIS-regulated food. Unfortunately,
the same cannot be said for illnesses caused by salmonella.
SALMONELLA
Our estimates of illnesses caused by salmonella from FSIS-regulated
products mirror this trend, despite recent interventions and
significant improvement in contamination rates measured by our
verification testing. Reducing illnesses due to salmonella remains a
top priority for FSIS. As long as people continue to get sick from
food, we must ensure that our inspection activities align with food
safety risks. A multifaceted effort will be necessary in order to
achieve reductions in salmonella rates.
This past December, we advised establishments that produce ground
and comminuted poultry products that they needed to reassess their
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plans in light of
recent developments that could affect how they analyze the hazards the
products present. Companies producing raw ground or comminuted poultry
products will be required in their reassessments to account for several
salmonella outbreaks that were associated with those types of products
over the past few years. This reassessment will increase the likelihood
that the establishments will effectively address the hazards these
products present and thus better prevent foodborne illness.
We have also finalized a raw chicken parts baseline that targets
reducing salmonella rates in other poultry products. This
microbiological baseline study provides us with important data on the
prevalence and quantitative levels of certain foodborne pathogens, such
as salmonella, and other microorganisms.
To stay ahead of emerging risk and trends with salmonella, FSIS has
charged its newly established Strategic Performance Working Group with
identifying potential interventions or actions to decrease FSIS-
attributable salmonellosis.
MODERNIZATION TO IMPROVE FOOD SAFETY
Another important method for preventing salmonella illnesses is to
align inspection with risk by modernizing poultry slaughter inspection,
which is why we announced a proposed rule that would focus inspection
on areas of poultry production with the biggest impact on public
health. Currently, FSIS in-plant personnel perform quality assurance
tasks such as looking for visible defects, but they are unable to
detect invisible pathogens and microbes this way. Therefore, FSIS would
focus on critical food safety tasks, such as pathogen testing and
verifying HACCP and sanitation standard operating procedures, and the
quality assurance tasks would be turned over to the company. FSIS would
continue to inspect every carcass, as required by law. We estimate that
the new poultry inspection system would prevent at least 5,000
illnesses from salmonella and campylobacter each year.
The need for modernizing our food safety system is evident. As
pathogens evolve, and as our scientific knowledge of what causes
foodborne illness improves, we must ensure that our food safety system
and our inspection process responds to these challenges. Scientific
assumptions that were applied in the 1950s, when the Poultry Products
Inspection Act was first enacted, are outdated, so we must ensure that
our regulatory tools correspond with current knowledge.
This is why modernizing the poultry inspection system is so
important. Updating our approach would help the Agency prevent
foodborne illness more effectively and efficiently.
The implementation of the Public Health Information System (PHIS)
also provides us with another important decisionmaking tool to enable
us to protect public health more effectively, efficiently, and rapidly.
This Web-based system integrates our data sources to support a
comprehensive, timely and reliable data-driven approach to inspection.
This approach allows FSIS to identify food safety threats and emerging
trends more rapidly and accurately. In January 2012, FSIS completed a
full implementation of the domestic component of the system, and we
began implementation of the import component in spring 2012. In
addition, FSIS completed a staggered implementation of PHIS to industry
users last month and began implementation of the system to State MPI
programs, which is expected to be completed by the end of this year.
Until we can ensure that no contaminated product is ever released
into commerce, we must also align our in-commerce activities, such as
traceback investigations, with risks. For example, FSIS is developing a
proposed rule to require retail operations to maintain accurate
grinding records of source materials and particular practices, which
would greatly improve the Agency's ability to trace products from
retail back to slaughter facilities.
TARGETING RESOURCES
In addition to improving food safety, we must be good stewards of
taxpayer money, and that is why FSIS continues to examine ways to
target resources where they can be most effective.
For example, we estimate that the previously mentioned
modernization of poultry slaughter inspection would save taxpayers
approximately $90 million over a 3-year period upon full
implementation. FSIS also believes that participating establishments
will see lower production costs resulting in a shared benefit to
consumers and industry of about $250 million annually.
LEVERAGING RESOURCES
While our primary focus is preventing foodborne illness by ensuring
that industry produces safe food, we can also improve food safety by
collaborating with our Federal partners and educating consumers.
For example, we have met with our stakeholders to discuss ways that
we can promote good pre-harvest practices that will reduce the
likelihood of contamination at slaughter. We also work with our Federal
food safety partners to share food safety expertise and best practices.
In addition to doing everything we can to ensure the safety of
meat, poultry and processed egg products before they get to the store
shelves, we feel it is also our responsibility to provide consumers
with the tools they need to handle food safely at home.
That is why FSIS, CDC, and FDA teamed up with the Ad Council to
launch a national public service campaign called Food Safe Families,
which educates consumers about the risks of foodborne illness and how
to prevent it. For an investment of $2.8 million over 3 years, the Ad
Council has been able to run a national TV, radio, and print ad
campaign worth an estimated $46 million through donated media.
To better reach consumers and ensure that our food safety messages
are received by a larger audience, FSIS also utilizes various social
and new media platforms to reach out about key food safety messages,
such as recalls and safe food handling practices.
FSIS actively disseminates food safety messages through its virtual
food safety expert, Ask Karen; Twitter; Facebook; Blogs; and YouTube.
For example, the number of views of Ask Karen answers increased from
444,000 in fiscal year 2011 to more than 1.1 million in fiscal year
2012. The @USDAFoodSafety Twitter account had 332,600 followers at the
end of fiscal year 2012, representing a 66 percent increase over fiscal
year 2011. We are currently able to reach more than 390,000 followers
with each tweet, and that number grows by about 2,000 weekly.
CONCLUSION
We are continually assessing whether we are doing our best to
prevent foodborne illnesses in the most effective and efficient way
possible. Government can deliver better than people expect, and we are
committed to doing so.
We at the Office of Food Safety and FSIS are one team, with one
purpose, working toward a common and extremely important goal. I am
proud to lead the FSIS workforce in its mission to protect public
health.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Mr. Concannon.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF KEVIN CONCANNON
Mr. Concannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Senator Cochran, for this opportunity to present the
administration's 2014 budget for the USDA's Food, Nutrition,
and Consumer Services (FNCS).
I'm pleased to join you at a time when the economy shows
promising signs of recovery. New jobs are being added each day,
and caseloads in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) are forecasted to decline.
Indeed, in some States, SNAP caseloads have already begun
to drop. This news is encouraging, but I remain concerned that
many families still struggle to put nutritious food on the
table. The latest census data shows that almost 49 million
Americans remain in poverty. And program data shows that
families participating in SNAP are much poorer than those who
participated 10 years ago.
Many of these poor families are in the workforce. Over the
past 20 years, the source of SNAP households income has shifted
from welfare to earnings. In 1991, 41 percent of all SNAP
households received cash welfare and only 20 percent had
earnings. In 2011, only 8 percent of SNAP households received
cash welfare, while 31 percent had earnings. And 80 percent of
SNAP participants who can reasonably be expected to work do so.
I'm pleased that these families have found employment, but
I'm troubled that their income may not be sufficient to meet
their needs. USDA is dedicated to reducing SNAP roles the right
way, by helping clients transition to good paying jobs.
As we fight food insecurity and hunger, we're also tackling
an unprecedented obesity epidemic that threatens our Nation's
health, budget, and national security. Hunger and obesity are
connected, and we're working to solve them both, too often in
the same person.
The President's budget request reflects the ongoing need
for nutrition assistance and the longstanding commitment of
Congress and various administrations to fully fund the major
programs. And it invests targeted resources to improve program
integrity to support implementation of the Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act of 2010 with school equipment grants, and to modernize
technology and build the foundation for WIC EBT.
I recognize that this request asks our Nation to entrust to
us over $102 billion of taxpayer money at a time when resources
are tightly constrained. I am profoundly aware of our
responsibility to manage these hard-earned tax dollars with the
highest accountability, efficiency, and integrity.
Through state-of-the-art technology and collaboration with
law enforcement, FNCS succeeded in reducing the trafficking
rate from 4 percent to 1 percent over the last 15 years. We
have permanently disqualified the owners of thousands of retail
stores for trafficking. And since trafficking involves both the
retailer and the recipient, FNCS is working with States to
identify clients with suspicious transaction patterns for
further investigation.
Additionally, FNCS has successfully worked with States to
reduce the problem of multiple card replacement. While many
card replacements are legitimate, repeated and frequent
requests for replacement cards may indicate fraudulent
activity.
FNCS has encouraged States to warn clients with this
suspicious behavior that they are being monitored. These
efforts have reduced multiple card replacement card requests
nationally.
Our strategies are working, but there's more to be done.
While rare, fraud undermines public confidence and jeopardizes
SNAP's ability to serve the struggling families who need it the
most. We cannot and do not tolerate fraud.
Our budget includes additional resources for integrity-
focused activities and related information systems to enhance
integrity efforts across all of our programs, including the
school meals and the WIC program.
This request also provides support to improve the eating
habits of program participants. This past year, we've worked
closely with our State partners to implement the Healthy,
Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, including new science-based
school meals nutrition standards that offer flexibility for
schools while ensuring meals high in nutrients, adequate in
calories, and reflecting appropriate portion size.
Almost all of us at every income level could improve our
diets to better protect our health. The Center for Nutrition
Policy and Promotion leads that effort to improve the diets of
all Americans.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In conclusion, the budget fully supports the Nation's major
nutrition assistance programs so that they can meet their
missions while making smart investments, promoting integrity,
and supporting a healthier future.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kevin Concannon
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee for the
opportunity to present the administration's fiscal year 2014 budget
request for USDA's Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services (FNCS).
I am pleased to join you at a time when the economy shows promising
signs of recovery. New jobs are added each day and caseloads in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the cornerstone of
the Nation's nutrition assistance safety net, are forecasted to
decline. Indeed, in some States, SNAP caseloads have already begun to
drop--Utah has seen a participation drop of 10.1 percent and North
Dakota has seen a participation decrease of 12.9 percent from February
2012 to February 2013. This news is encouraging, but I remain concerned
for the large number of families who still struggle to put nutritious
food on the table. The latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows
that almost 49 million families remain in poverty, and the U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics reports that 11.7 million Americans are looking for
work. Of particular concern, our own administrative data shows that the
families participating in SNAP are much poorer than those 10 years ago;
in 2011, 43 percent of SNAP recipients had gross income at or below 50
percent of the Federal poverty level and 33 percent had no net income.
In 2001, 38 percent had gross income at or below 50 percent of the
Federal poverty level and 18 percent had no net income.
Many of these poor families are in the workforce. Over the past 20
years, the source of SNAP households' income has shifted from welfare
to earnings, showing that SNAP is serving as an important support for
working families. In 1991, 41 percent of all SNAP households received
cash welfare and only 20 percent had earnings. In 2011, only 8 percent
of SNAP households received cash welfare, while 31 percent had
earnings. Further, when you look at employment both before entering
SNAP, as well as after exiting the program, 80 percent of SNAP
participants who can reasonably be expected to work do in fact work. I
am pleased that these families have found employment, but am troubled
that their income is not sufficient to meet their needs. As we continue
to ensure that working families can get the nutrition assistance
support that they need, I am committed to improving work services for
SNAP recipients through the employment and training program, which
fills a critical gap in workforce training services and helps SNAP
recipients obtain and retain jobs.
These circumstances underscore that while we are steadily
recovering from the economic downturn, the nutrition assistance
programs managed by the Food and Nutrition Service remain critically
important to millions of low-income Americans. Programs like SNAP, the
school meals programs, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) help bridge the gap for families
in need by preventing hunger or extreme economic hardship as they
regain self-sufficiency.
At the same time we are fighting food insecurity and hunger in our
Nation, we are also tackling an unprecedented obesity epidemic that
threatens are Nation's health, budget, and national security. It is
important to understand that these two problems, hunger and obesity,
are connected. We are working to solve them both, too often in the same
person.
The President's budget request for nutrition assistance reflects
the ongoing need for these programs, and the longstanding commitment of
Congress and various administrations over the years to fully meet
anticipated funding needs for the major nutrition assistance programs.
The budget also makes targeted investments to:
--Focus additional resources on program integrity and payment
accuracy;
--Extend the enhanced SNAP benefits provided through the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) until March 31, 2014;
--Support implementation of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
with school equipment grants; and
--Continue to modernize technology and build the foundation for WIC
EBT.
IMPROVING THE WAY FEDERAL DOLLARS ARE SPENT
I recognize that this budget request asks the Nation to entrust us
with over $102 billion of taxpayer money to maintain a robust nutrition
safety net, at a time when resources across Government are tightly
constrained. I am profoundly aware of the depth of this responsibility,
and the imperative to manage these hard-earned tax dollars with the
highest accountability, efficiency and integrity. Now more than ever,
we must ensure that every dollar helps to feed a person in need, and is
not wasted or misused, in order to maintain public confidence in the
programs. I am committed to good stewardship, reducing inefficiency and
increasing cost-effectiveness. USDA has reduced its costs through the
Department's Blueprint for Stronger Service, which is modernizing and
accelerating service delivery while improving the customer experience
through use of innovative technologies and business solutions. FNCS has
methodically reviewed its policies and procedures, maximized our
limited resources, and saved Federal dollars by centralizing SNAP
retailer operation functions. Reengineering the authorization process
of retailers in SNAP into one nationalized, integrated structure
provides stronger oversight, greater consistency, better communication,
and improved quality of operations. This streamlining process
consolidated 31 field offices in 28 States into a single national
office. The newly formed national retailer management organization
continues to take full advantage of available technology and improved
policies and procedures to better fight fraud and protect Federal
dollars.
Americans expect and deserve a government that operates with
integrity and efficiency, and we are committed to fighting error and
waste. Over the past decade, SNAP successfully reduced the payment
error rate from 8.9 percent in 2000 to 3.8 percent in 2011--the lowest
ever payment error rate in the history of the program. The result of
the error rate reduction from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2011 is a
decrease in erroneous benefits of more than $3.67 billion had the
fiscal year 2000 rate stayed the same for fiscal year 2011. However, we
are not satisfied with this historic achievement and remain engaged and
committed to collaborating with our State partners in order to identify
additional strategies to improve the program's accuracy even further.
FNCS has also made substantial strides in reducing the prevalence
of trafficking, the illegal selling of SNAP benefits for cash. We have
strengthened procedures, established a stronger front-end retailer
screening process, toughened sanctions, and acted to better hold
retailers that violate program rules accountable. Through state-of-the-
art technology and collaboration with law enforcement partners, FNCS
succeeded in reducing trafficking from 4 cents of every benefit $1 to
about 1 cent of every benefit $1 over the last 15 years. Along with
these efforts, FNCS permanently disqualified the owners of 8,300 retail
stores for trafficking during the last 10 years, and sanctioned or
disqualified the owners of almost 2,100 stores in 2012 alone.
Since trafficking involves both the retailer and the recipient,
FNCS is working with State agencies to identify client households that
have suspicious transaction patterns for further investigation of
potential recipient trafficking violations. In fiscal year 2011, State
agencies conducted nearly 798,000 fraud investigations and disqualified
over 46,000 individuals for intentional program violations.
Additionally, FNCS has focused on and successfully worked with States
to reduce the number of multiple replacement cards requested by each
household. While many replacement requests are legitimate, repeated and
frequent requests for replacement cards may indicate fraudulent
activity. I am happy to report that the majority of States now use the
model letter as a trigger to warn clients with this suspicious behavior
that they are being monitored; these efforts have resulted in a
reduction in multiple replacement card requests nationally.
Our strategies are working, but there is more to be done. While
rare, fraud undermines public confidence and jeopardizes the ability of
SNAP to serve the tens of millions of struggling families who need it
the most. Despite these achievements, any amount of fraud cannot be
allowed in a program that is the cornerstone of our efforts to reduce
food insecurity. We cannot and do not tolerate it. Our budget includes
additional resources for integrity-focused activities and related
information technology systems to enhance our program integrity efforts
further. Fraud is not a static. FNCS and our State partners must remain
vigilant, ready to identify those few bad actors that try to exploit
the program in new ways and ready to make the necessary technological
or systems changes that will thwart those efforts.
FNCS is committed to ensuring the integrity of all of our nutrition
assistance programs. We have been working to reduce improper payments
in the school meals programs for several years, while making sure that
these efforts do not compromise access for low-income children or
unduly burden schools. We continue to implement new program integrity
tools provided by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. We are
restructuring and increasing the frequency of oversight program
reviews, strengthening direct certification, and implementing rules
that provide additional oversight and integrity tools for the schools
meals program. Direct certification not only reduces administrative
costs for schools, but also reduces the burden on eligible families.
FNCS has provided States with extensive technical assistance and grants
to improve direct certification systems to certify children receiving
SNAP for free meals without an additional application from their
families.
FNCS is also committed to ensuring program integrity in WIC.
Nationwide data show that payment accuracy is relatively high in WIC--
certification errors were approximately 3 percent and vendor charging
errors were about 1.1 percent of food spending. But as with the other
programs, no level of improper payments is acceptable. When WIC vendor
management problems were discovered in a few States last year, we took
quick, decisive action, investigating these issues thoroughly and
working to develop solutions that did not impair program operations for
clients. FNCS continues to monitor these States to ensure the problems
are resolved.
PREVENTING HUNGER AND SUPPORTING HEALTHY EATING
This budget request sustains the nutrition assistance safety net
and provides support to improve the eating habits of participants in
its programs and of all Americans. The support of healthy eating is
perhaps best observed in our implementation of the provisions of the
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. This past year, we have worked
closely with our State partners to implement new science-based school
meals nutrition standards that provide meals high in nutrients,
adequate in calories, and reflecting appropriate portion sizes to help
children lead healthy lifestyles. Some schools have implemented these
changes with ease, such as those that were already following approaches
similar to the new nutrition standards, while other schools have had to
make greater changes to improve the nutrition quality of meals they
provide each day. FNCS has provided extensive technical assistance to
these schools, including offering increased flexibilities as the
schools make this important transition.
The Department also recently published a proposed rule implementing
new authority to set nutrition standards for foods sold in vending
machines and a la carte lines in schools. In the coming years, FNCS
will develop educational and training standards for school nutrition
professionals and will help schools strengthen their local wellness
policies.
Additionally, FNCS works to help improve the diets of all
Americans. Almost every household in this Nation--of any income level--
could make substantial improvements in their diet to better protect
their health. The Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP)
works hard to provide Americans with information and tools to make
their food and physical activity choices more consistent with the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans. We are pleased with the success of
the popular Web site, MyPlate SuperTracker, which allows all Americans
to track their food intake, physical activity, and weight online. More
than 2 million people regularly use the program. MyPlate SuperTracker
uses the new MyPlate icon, which prompts consumers to think about
building a healthy plate with fruit, vegetable, grains, proteins, and
dairy food groups.
The mission of FNCS provides us with a powerful opportunity to
promote healthy diets, physically active lives, and healthy weights for
those we serve. Our strong commitment to improve the health of
Americans can be found in our work with MyPlate, which educates
Americans about healthy diets, and in our nutrition assistance
programs, which provide eligible low-income families in need with
access to healthy foods. The efforts of the Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS) and CNPP thus complement each other; both are critical to the
health and future success of our people.
Let me turn now to a few highlights of the budget request.
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The President's budget requests almost $78.4 billion for SNAP,
enough to serve an average of 44.7 million people each month in fiscal
year 2014. This is a projected 2.4 million person decrease from the
number of participants estimated for fiscal year 2013. We've included a
proposal in this year's budget to extend the Recovery Act portion of
the SNAP benefit for an additional 5 months until March 31, 2014. We
currently estimate that on November 1, a family of four will see their
SNAP benefit reduced by about $37. This proposal will enable SNAP to
continue to provide an enhanced benefit to low-income American families
as they continue the effort to get back on their feet.
In addition, because rooting out fraud, waste and abuse is a top
priority for this administration, the budget builds on our current
program integrity efforts by seeking additional funds to invest in
compliance specialists, investigators, quality assurance and data
mining efforts as well as more frequent integrity reviews, management
evaluations and fraud investigations. Fraud and trafficking--and even
unintentional errors that allow SNAP assistance to be provided to
households that do not need it--risk undermining the credibility of the
program and distract attention from the real needs of low-income
Americans who turn to SNAP to put food on the table.
The budget also fully supports authorized food purchases for The
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). Local food banks, soup
kitchens and food pantries have seen increased demand for food
assistance, and TEFAP plays a critical role in ensuring that these
organizations have a stable source of food and administrative funds to
get food to those in need.
CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS
The budget requests about $20.5 billion for the Child Nutrition
Programs, to assist State and local governments in serving nutritious
meals to children in public and private schools, child care
institutions, and summer recreation programs. The budget renews a
request for $35 million to provide school meals equipment grants to
school districts to purchase the equipment needed to serve healthier
meals as required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA), improve
food safety, and expand access. The need for updated equipment is
great; FNS has received requests totaling $600 million from States and
school districts around the country and the current budget request will
be an important step toward addressing this need. These equipment
grants also support the establishment or expansion of the School
Breakfast Program since our prior experience shows that lack of
adequate kitchen equipment is a prime reason why many schools are not
able to initiate or expand their breakfast programs. The budget also
includes a request for $3 million in increased resources for Child
Nutrition integrity efforts including support for State integrity
efforts and technology solutions to local program management and
monitoring challenges.
WIC
The President's budget includes over $7.1 billion for the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC,
to ensure that all eligible persons seeking to participate can be
served. The request will allow local communities to provide food,
nutrition education and a link to healthcare to 8.9 million women,
infants and children expected to participate in the program in an
average month. The budget request also includes $30 million to continue
the work with State agencies, food retail vendors and the payments
industry to implement WIC EBT nationwide by 2020. Recognizing the
established benefits of breastfeeding for mothers and infants, the
budget sustains the investment in breastfeeding peer counseling at $60
million. The budget also maintains a $125 million Contingency Fund and
includes an additional $5 million in Federal Administration and
Oversight for additional program integrity efforts including providing
direct technical assistance to States on vendor management, monitoring
competitive price criteria and maximum allowable reimbursement rates;
performing in-depth, targeted reviews of high-risk program areas; and
development of model software to assist State agencies in preventing
and identifying program abuse.
COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The President's budget includes $272 million for the Commodity
Assistance Program, including an increase of almost $16 million for the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). Funding for CSFP continues
to support the current caseload by providing supplemental food
assistance to many low-income seniors and others struggling to meet
their monthly food needs. The request also includes over $51 million
for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) administrative costs.
This funding enables hundreds of regional food banks, soup kitchens and
food pantries to provide food to families who need it. Of the $51
million requested, $2 million would fund oversight activities such as
management evaluation reviews and technical assistance for State and
local TEFAP operations, to help ensure that program funds are being
spent in accordance with law and regulation.
NUTRITION PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
Finally, the President's budget requests $146.6 million to fund
Nutrition Programs Administration and the Center for Nutrition Policy
and Promotion. The request includes $2 million to complete phase I of
developing unified, Federal dietary guidance for infants and very young
children from birth to 2 years of age. To date, the Dietary Guidelines
for Americans have focused on Americans over the age of 2 because of
the complexity of assessing the scientific evidence on the dietary
needs and health outcomes of children in this age group. However, in
light of emerging science on the importance of early nutrition on long-
term health outcomes, unified Federal guidance is needed. The budget
request also includes $2 million for promotion of the Dietary
Guidelines and MyPlate.
In conclusion, the President's budget supports the Nation's
nutrition assistance programs so that they can fulfill their vital
missions and provide benefits to eligible families who wish to
participate. This budget makes smart investments that will improve the
way Federal dollars are spent, while avoiding waste and focusing on
program integrity. It also focuses resources on promoting better eating
choices, both among program clients and the general population, to
support a healthier future. I look forward to your questions.
Senator Pryor. Thank you and we're not going to ask Mr.
Young to say anything, but you're welcome to if you like to.
Mr. Young. I'm fine, thank you.
Senator Pryor. You'll stay right where you are?
Okay, listen, I have several questions for each of you, so
I'll just jump right in. And we'll do 5-minute rounds, and then
Senator Cochran I know has lots of questions as well.
RESEARCH FUNDING
Let me start with Dr. Woteki, if I may. I'll say I was
pleased to see the funding increase request for NIFA. We're the
world leader in agricultural production, and the demands on the
industry are growing. We're being far outspent by China, India,
Brazil, and others, when it comes to agricultural research. If
we want to remain the world leader, we need to keep up our
game.
While competitive funding is an important tool, capacity
funding at our land-grant universities is equally important.
Unlike competitive research, it provides a steady stream of
revenue to allow a wide range of real-time, real-world research
that can solve local and regional problems immediately and can
be disseminated through the extension service to make that
research effective when it's implemented.
Our land-grant universities have provided the bedrock
support that has made our agricultural research system the envy
of the world and helped position the United States to be the
world's largest food exporter.
Now some of the benefits that go along with this are lower
transaction costs, increased relevancy for local stakeholders,
assurance of broader distribution of funds, more diverse
agricultural landscape, lower overhead, consistent support for
core base and foundation research.
So, in addition, and one last thing, these funds are often
highly leveraged with State and local governments often putting
in as much as 10 times as much to do matching and to help
maximize the effectiveness.
So, Dr. Woteki, I know you know this. I know you understand
the value in the formula grant programs, even though the budget
doesn't provide an increase for that. So why isn't the research
increase provided in USDA's budget split between competitive
and formula programs?
Dr. Woteki. Well, Mr. Chairman, we do agree with you on the
importance of having a balanced portfolio of capacity and
competitive funds. And the budget, we believe, expresses that
continued commitment to have a balanced portfolio.
Our emphasis on increasing the competitive grants program
is based on a series of studies and recommendations that have
been made over the last decade-plus, the most recent one from
the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology,
which was issued in December of last year. And these studies
have recommended that in our portfolio of agricultural research
we should be changing that balance to include a greater
proportion in the competitive grants area.
So this budget is reflecting that outside advice that has
come through this most recent President's Council of Advisers
on Science and Technology, as well as other studies that the
National Academy of Sciences has done.
FSIS FURLOUGHS
Senator Pryor. We may have some follow-up on that in a few
minutes, but, first, I wanted to ask Dr. Hagen about the FSIS,
which is something that Senator Blunt and I worked on recently
to make sure that we found some funding to make sure there were
going to be no furloughs and layoffs, et cetera.
Can you provide assurance to the subcommittee that no FSIS
inspectors will be furloughed in fiscal year 2013, and that
plant operations will not be impacted due to any lack of
inspectors onsite?
Dr. Hagen. Thank you. Thank you for your question, Mr.
Chairman.
And I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you and
Senator Blunt for coming to our assistance in that situation.
We are very grateful.
And yes, I can assure you that the supplemental funding
that we received is going to be adequate to avoid furloughs for
the workforce. And therefore, the economic impacts that
would've been attached to those furloughs will not be incurred
by the regulated industry.
WIC BUDGET
Senator Pryor. Right. That's great news.
Mr. Concannon, the budget includes a total of $7.1 billion
for WIC. Will this amount fully fund the anticipated
participation?
Mr. Concannon. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the amount funded in the
budget will fully fund WIC. As the chair and members of the
subcommittee may be aware, WIC now serves in excess of 50
percent of American infants in the first year of life, and
nearly as many births.
We anticipate next year, this budget is based on a forecast
of 8.9 million participants each month, and the budget will
fully fund the WIC program.
WIC PARTICIPATION
Senator Pryor. Okay, so, given the, I guess I'd say
volatile nature of this program, I guess you can say that, are
you concerned that food prices or participation will increase
over the next several months?
Mr. Concannon. Mr. Chairman, we have been working with
State agencies across the country, urging them to particularly
review their food packages in an effort to make sure they are
fully availing themselves of efficiencies, and we have been
seeing the effects of that in a lowered average food cost
package.
For example, we're urging States not to reduce the amount
of calories or the food groups, obviously, available to these
moms or their children, but rather to look at, for example,
moving from name brand, for example, whole grain breads to
generic brands or house brands, which we have seen in some
States make a considerable difference in the average food
package cost.
WIC CONTINGENCY RESERVE
Senator Pryor. Okay. And I've noticed also that the budget
includes an increase of $50 million for the WIC contingency
reserve. Do you anticipate using any of that reserve in this
fiscal year?
Mr. Concannon. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We anticipate relying
upon that contingency reserve to get through this year. That's
why the request is there for the contingency reserve for next
year. It will be necessary.
Senator Pryor. Do you know how much of that you will use?
Mr. Concannon. I don't off the top of my head. I know that
the $50 million is needed for next year, but I don't know how
deep we're going to have to go this year.
IMPACT OF SEQUESTRATION ON WIC
Senator Pryor. And what impact has sequestration had on
WIC, if any?
Mr. Concannon. Well, earlier, the earlier forecast would've
been an impact on 600,000 participants, between sequestration
and the budget that was enacted. But we have been able to--with
additional resources provided, are assured that we can serve
all of the caseload this year without reductions.
Senator Pryor. Okay.
Senator Cochran.
CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to join you
and other members of the subcommittee in reviewing the budget
request that will provide funding for food safety, research,
nutrition, marketing, regulatory mission areas of the
Department of Agriculture. That's a lot of stuff to keep up
with and to monitor and administer in a fair way.
We were talking about food programs in the schools, and I
couldn't help but remember back when my father was a principal
of a small school in North Mississippi when I started school.
And inevitably, there would be some children that didn't have
lunch money that would be turned into the classroom teachers at
the beginning of the week, and tickets could be bought to go
through the lunchroom line. It was a soup and sandwich program,
really, and totally locally administered and managed and funded
through contributions either from the students themselves who
could afford to contribute at very modest amounts to go through
the line.
Anyway, we've come a long way since that, and I'm glad
we're beyond that stage in our history, and we have programs
now whose intent and purpose is to provide access to nutritious
lunch programs in schools.
And my question is, is there something that we need to be
doing that we're not doing to help achieve these goals? Are
there weaknesses in the way the programs are operating or do we
need to provide additional funding earmarked--oh my gosh--for
certain special attention, if that's required?
Mr. Concannon. Well, Senator, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids
Act authorized and funded by Congress has made a huge leap
forward in terms of assuring that American children, not only
the 32-plus million that participate in the National School
Lunch Program, but all American schoolchildren, nearly 50
million, will be affected by that Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids
Act.
Where there remains real challenges, as I've traveled the
country, is in the equipment available to schools across the
country. The President's budget request is for $35 million for
equipment grants. The stimulus fund of several years ago
authorized $100 million for schools across the country. We
received $600 million in requests.
As we've traveled to schools, particularly heating
equipment and cooling equipment--schools for the most part have
set aside those deep fryers and so on for deep-frying foods.
They're using convection ovens. They're serving healthier
foods.
And I would say the challenge for schools across the
country, beyond the reimbursement provided in this bill for
school meals, which is adequate, is really going to be in the
equipment, the capital equipment area. And that's why there is
a request for $35 million this year.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And it's good to see Mr. Ed Avalos here, a fellow New
Mexican, and I know very popular in our State and a real credit
to the Department.
So good to see you here today, Ed.
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING
As you're very well aware, I've been working since I've
been in the Congress, both the House and the Senate, on the
COOL issue. I was wondering if you could bring us up to date on
that. Is the USDA on track to get the rule to modify country of
origin labeling provisions finalized by May 23? And can you
share with the subcommittee what kind of input you receive from
producers on the proposed rule?
Mr. Avalos. Absolutely, Senator Udall. Before I answer your
question, I just wanted to comment. I got calls this week that
we're actually getting rain in New Mexico.
Senator Udall. The next question was going to be about
drought. Good to hear, so go ahead. Yes, that's very exciting,
especially when we're in this exceptional drought situation for
a big chunk of the State and also extreme drought for other
parts of it, so it's a very difficult situation.
Mr. Avalos. Well, as you know, we did publish a proposed
rule. The proposed rule had labeling requirements that had to
show the production steps to identify where the animal was
born, where it was raised, and where it was slaughtered.
The comment period closed, I think it was April 11. We
received hundreds of comments. And I just want to assure you
that we do plan to move forward with a final rule before the
deadline of May 23.
Senator Udall. Great, thank you very much.
DROUGHT MITIGATION RESEARCH
And Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics,
you've heard me talk a little bit about the drought and New
Mexico's situation. I'm wondering if you could share with the
subcommittee the ways in which your mission area is currently
helping producers face water and drought challenges, and share
your vision of how these efforts can be increased in the
future. How does the President's fiscal year 2014 budget
reflect this need for new ideas and research on dealing with
water scarcity?
Dr. Woteki. Senator Udall, one of the themes that runs
through our current research priorities is building resilience
into agricultural systems, cropping systems or livestock
systems. And in that concept of resiliency is how do we make
the best use of water resources; how do we develop new crop
varieties that are going to be able to sustain too much water
or too little water, depending on what time of the season it
may come; and also how to build in disease resistance and pest
resistance at the same time. So water is a central focus of our
research priorities.
And the way that we're addressing it is through a
combination of research programs to develop livestock systems
and cropping systems with the resiliency to drought as well as
to flooding conditions. Doing economic analysis is going to be
helpful to farmers to understand what the impacts of this most
recent drought has been, as well as future perspectives. And to
work with the cooperative extension and our land-grant
university partners to get information that's coming from
research programs, whether it's the intramural program at ARS
or work that's being funded at the land-grant universities, and
to get that information into farmers' hands, so that they can
be making the best choices on seed purchases for an upcoming
planting season, based on the projections of weather conditions
for that region. So it's kind of a package of activities.
And we've also been using a lot of forecasting and remote-
sensing information, cooperating with our partners in the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to
provide more information in easily accessible forms like our
drought Web pages that have received, literally, tens of
thousands of visits, so it's a package approach.
Senator Udall. That's a good approach. Thank you both for
your answers and really appreciate the service of all of the
panel members. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
NATIONAL POULTRY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Mr. Avalos, let me start with you, if I may. The National
Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) for almost 70 years now has
been recognized as the gold standard here and around the world
when it comes to poultry disease control.
Are you aware of any proposed changes to the governance,
structure, or mission of NPIP that would jeopardize USDA's
avian influenza surveillance in commercial poultry, the
continued indemnification of poultry workers in case of a
disease outbreak, or make more difficult to U.S. ability to
meet all appropriate World Organization for Animal Health
standards?
Mr. Avalos. Mr. Chairman, I just want to emphasize that
avian health is very important to us at APHIS. Just last week,
we had representatives from the poultry industry that came in
to visit with us. They talked about the National Poultry
Improvement Plan and how important it was to them.
And I just want to emphasize that we feel that the National
Poultry Improvement Plan is a model, really a model for the
world. It demonstrates tremendous cooperation between the State
and Federal Government and the poultry industry. And we are
going to fully support it in 2014, just like we do today.
On surveillance, the budget cuts that we have would not
impact whatsoever on surveillance. It's a top priority for us,
and we are going to maintain the same level of surveillance for
the poultry industry.
Senator Pryor. Okay. So you don't anticipate any changes at
all that will hurt your ability to do that?
Mr. Avalos. We do not.
Senator Pryor. Great.
POULTRY SLAUGHTER MODERNIZATION
And let me go ahead and jump back to Dr. Hagen, and let me
just say the Department is continuing to move forward with the
implementation of new methods of poultry inspection. And we
appreciate the USDA, that it has piloted and analyzed these
procedures at a variety of plants for some years.
If you could discuss with us the results of your analysis
of the pilot, particularly to provide assurances that food
safety will be improved, and worker safety, both inspectors and
plant employees, will not be impaired.
Dr. Hagen. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman.
And I just want to be clear when I start that we are not
yet moving forward. This is a proposed rule. We don't have a
final rule. And obviously, we can't really predict the outcome
of notice-and-comment rulemaking.
This is an opportunity, a rare opportunity, the regulatory
agency has to actually move our mission forward, which is to
protect consumers and to reduce illnesses. While we do this at
greater efficiency and while we are better stewards of taxpayer
dollars, often we find that in order to do something better, it
costs more. And in this case, we're finding a way to do it more
efficiently.
We also find that there are real, tangible benefits beyond
the food safety for consumers and for the industry in the way
of shared financial benefits.
So this is a top priority for us. We have been inspecting
poultry for the same way basically since the 1950s, so we've
got to do better.
So we started with the premise that we need to be focused
on the things that matter most for food safety, that the things
that we knew about in the 1950s were not the things that we
should be focused on now. We started with a very common-sense
premise. We took a look back at our experience. We've been
engaged in a pilot program since 1998 in 25 establishments,
three of which are in your State, Mr. Chairman, or three of
which are in your State. I think two are in your State, Senator
Cochran.
And we looked at a series of performance standards that
were set from the beginning of that pilot program, everything
from visible defects and contamination rates in comparison
plants versus pilot plants, to bacterial contamination rates.
And across-the-board, we found that the plants in the pilot
actually were doing better when it came to these performance
measures.
So we found that we had not only an equal level of consumer
protection but an enhanced level of consumer protection.
We then went ahead and analyzed what we thought would
happen if we implemented this across the board, so we did a
quantitative, peer-reviewed risk assessment, an internationally
accepted tool for supporting public health policy. And we asked
how many illnesses will be reduced if we take these people off
of these tasks on the line, and we have them do more of these
tasks over here. And we found that, at minimum, 5,200 illnesses
per year would be prevented simply by changing where our
inspectors are focused and the tasks that they are performing.
Those assessments didn't include additional interventions
that might be employed by the industry. They didn't include
additional data that we anticipate gathering on Campylobacter
as we implement our verification program there.
So I think this is a real opportunity for us. We have the
data to prove that we're headed in the right direction. And we
look forward to hopefully finalizing this proposal.
Senator Pryor. And I guess my next two questions are, why
is it not already final, because you've been working on this
for a long time, and it seems like the evidence is steering you
in that direction? So why is it not already final? And then,
when do you think it will be final?
Dr. Hagen. We don't control the timetable for all of
notice-and-comment rulemaking. We have a piece of that. We
really value the public input, that's a cornerstone of the
notice-and-comment rulemaking process.
So we received thousands of comments about this rule. There
are a lot of opinions from multiple different perspectives, and
we have an obligation to actually consider and address every
single one of those opinions that has been expressed to us.
So that's the process that we have been engaged in.
We've also been trying to make sure that we are focused to
the extent that we can on worker safety issues. We know what
the limits of our expertise are. We know what the limits of our
authority are. We know the leadership in the administration
that has that expertise, at the Occupational, Safety, and
Health Administration (OSHA) and at the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and so we've been
focused on whether there is some ability for us to facilitate
better data-gathering by those entities and to support them as
they make worker safety policy. So we've been focused on that
to some extent.
But we are in the process of preparing the final rule, and
we hope to get it through the interdepartmental review process
very soon.
POULTRY INSPECTOR POSITIONS
Senator Pryor. Do you have a sense of if, once the rule
becomes final--you might not be able to answer this yet. But do
you have a sense of how many fewer poultry inspectors you'll
need in the system?
Dr. Hagen. Over time, we anticipate that there will be 500
to 800 fewer positions, on-line positions. I want to be clear
that we aren't eliminating individuals' jobs. We have a plan
for every inspector to have an opportunity to take a different
position in the agency.
We actually have a significant amount of attrition every
year in the inspection workforce, so we're going to be managing
this through simply not filling, backfilling vacancies as they
come about.
AQUACULTURE
Senator Pryor. I want to ask something, if I may, to Mr.
Avalos, and this is something that both Senator Cochran and I
have in our States, and that is aquaculture.
Since APHIS's Wildlife Service has reduced funding for
aquaculture, it's my understanding that on-site visits to fish
farms in most States have been stopped. These visits, among
other things, are an extremely important part--in fact, a
central part of the process for farmers to apply to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Depredation Permit.
Can you look in to this matter and make sure that our fish
farmers will be able to protect their products? And also, would
you support a budget line item that will prevent aquaculture
funding from being taken away in future years?
Mr. Avalos. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Cochran, first,
I want to say that at USDA, we really appreciate the importance
of aquaculture industry to the United States, and the
importance it has to the rural communities, especially in the
South. I personally am very familiar with the catfish industry.
And I understand and I acknowledge a lot of the difficulties
they've had in the marketplace with depressed prices.
In fact, last year, we did a section 32 buy for catfish. We
removed $10 million worth of catfish from the marketplace. This
year, we're looking at another section 32 buy for catfish.
So first of all, I want you to know we're not abandoning
the aquaculture industry, whatsoever. Just with the budget
cuts, we did have to prioritize. We only have so much money to
go around, and we did have to cut aquaculture. But I want to
emphasize that we still have the research facility in
Mississippi. It's a very, very important component at USDA.
And our Wildlife Services people will still be able to
verify bird damage, and we'll still be able to help producers
obtain the depredation permits.
Senator Pryor. Yes, I think the way it's worked up to this
point is pretty much that person has to come out on the farm
and there's various things, information that's shared and data
that's gathered and whatnot. And that's been an essential part
of getting those permits. So we just need to make sure that if
the visits stop, that the permitting process doesn't stop.
Mr. Avalos. I understand that very well, Mr. Chairman,
absolutely.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
SNAP CONTINGENCY RESERVE
Next, for Mr. Concannon, the budget proposes an increase of
$2 billion for SNAP contingency reserve. If participation is
expected to decrease slightly, why are you asking for an
increase in reserve?
Mr. Concannon. Mr. Chairman, the request this year in this
budget is for a $5 billion contingent, contingency fund, which
is approximately 1 month of benefits. This year, we are reliant
upon $2.7 billion in contingency to get through the year for
SNAP. And we're able to accommodate that this year. But the
request for that increase in the contingency fund next year
recognizes that it's about 1 month of benefits and that we want
to be assured that we can successfully get through the next
year.
Senator Pryor. But am I correct that you think
participation is expected to decrease?
Mr. Concannon. Yes, Mr. Chair, where the budget forecasts a
2.4 million reduction based on again, as I mentioned in my
testimony earlier, we're seeing signs already in about eight or
so States of reductions year to year, looking back over the
past year. So I anticipate that reduction, that proposed budget
forecast, the 2.4 million average participation reduction.
Senator Pryor. Does that translate into a guess that you
will not need the reserve amount this fiscal year?
Mr. Concannon. We will need $2.7 billion that is moved
forward from last year for this current year.
Senator Pryor. You think you'll use that? You'll actually
use the $2.7 billion?
Mr. Concannon. Yes, sir.
Senator Pryor. All right, let me ask Dr. Hagen another
question, this time about the hazard analysis and critical
control points. I know that you have been working with several
interested parties on the HACCP plan reassessment for not-
ready-to-eat poultry products. I don't have a question really,
I just want to encourage you to continue those good faith
discussions and want you to know that if I can be of assistance
in that, I want to try to help on that, if I can.
DALE BUMPERS SMALL FARMS RESEARCH CENTER
Again, Dr. Woteki, let me ask you about a facility in
Arkansas, the small farm center in Booneville, actually named
the Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center. And I talked to
the Secretary about this last week, and I'm not going to go
through all the details of it, but basically, I'm just going to
assume that the reason the funding is the way it is in this
budget, or the lack of funding, is just because of the unusual
timing of the request. And I just mentioned to Secretary
Vilsack last week, but it does bear repeating, that I don't
intend to close Booneville ARS lab in this bill, so as we're
working on things for next year, I hope we'll take that
possibility off the table and just continue to work on that.
But I do have a question about the ARS extramural human
nutrition centers. We have one in Arkansas. It's at the
Arkansas Children's Hospital. And it's unique among the human
nutrition centers at ARS, and it is housed within Arkansas
Children's, as I mentioned. And I would just like in another
setting to visit with you about that funding, what makes it
unique, and make sure that we all understand what's going on
there with the ARS system and, hopefully, continue that
funding.
Dr. Woteki. We'd be happy to do that, Senator.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE ASSESSMENTS
Senator Pryor. Thank you. And also, Dr. Woteki, I'm really
not trying to pick on you. I just have a few questions for you.
But in the ARS budget, the budget itself, as you know, is--
let's be kind and say it's somewhat difficult to navigate. Can
we just say that? That it's a hard budget to understand, and
it's difficult just to get your hands around. And I'd like to
find a better and maybe simpler way to improve it or at least
make it more transparent.
And without a line item for administrative expenses, can
you please discuss the different types of assessments that
might be levied on your various research locations as well as
on your extramural cooperators, and why they would ever vary
from one location to another?
Dr. Woteki. To answer the first part of your question about
what are the types of costs that are in the overhead that ARS
is charging against all of its locations, we have a centralized
administrative and financial management unit that's responsible
for human resources, for contract activities, for all of our
financial oversight and management. And so all of those costs
are built in to the overhead.
We have had, as you point out, some extraordinary problems
over the last 3 years. The total budget cuts that have come to
the mission area are approaching 20 percent. And in 2012, we
were implementing the closures of 12 programs within ARS that
were located at 10 different locations that required the
closing of those 10 locations.
The costs that are associated with that have to be taken,
and ARS imposed an additional levy on all of its facilities in
order to manage that one-time cost associated with closure of
facilities. So that was another source of the overhead costs
that you're referring to in 2012.
Senator Pryor. I think what we'd like to do is, I'd like to
get a better understanding of how that works. I know it's hard
to follow and hard to understand, and maybe there are ways that
we can improve it. Sometimes you need to be careful of what you
ask for, but hopefully, maybe we can find ways to improve it
and make sure that we're doing our role here and doing some
oversight and making sure it's working as it should.
Let me turn it over to Senator Cochran, he has a few more
questions.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
CATFISH INSPECTIONS
In connection with the inspection programs, I wonder what
is the status of our effort to increase the effectiveness of
our inspection of domestic fish production.
The catfish industry is very important in some Deep South
States now. And there's concern that even though we have
authorized and provided funding, which we hope would be used by
the Food Safety and Inspection Service to assure that supplies
of catfish that are being produced in several southern States
now, and maybe others too, are fit for human consumption and
are safe to eat.
What is the status of our effort to make sure we're meeting
the challenge of the catfish inspection and grading program?
Dr. Hagen. I'll take that question, Senator. I know how
important this is to you. I remember that you and I visited
about this issue when I was coming up through confirmation, and
I remember that we visited again in your office as we were
getting close to a proposed rule. So I know how important this
is for you and for the producers in your State. And I
understand the frustration with the delay.
I think it has turned out to be more complicated than we
thought it would be. I am committed to trying to get this out,
getting a final rule out by the end of the fiscal year. And as
I alluded to earlier with the chairman, sometimes there are
pieces of that timetable that we don't control. But our staff
knows that this is a priority, and I look forward to visiting
with you about a final rule.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
good efforts.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
And with that, we have other questions that we're going to
submit for the record. And I know that some of our colleagues
who could not join us today will have some questions. So I
would like to thank all of our panelists today, all of our
witnesses for being here, and tell you how much I appreciate
your time and your testimony, and all the follow-up that will
come with it.
I also want to give a special thanks to Senator Cochran.
Thank you not just for being here today but for all that you've
done for American agriculture.
So for all of the members of the subcommittee, what we're
going to do is we'll leave the record open for 1 week, which is
Thursday, May 23. And we would appreciate if you would get your
questions in as quickly as possible and then get it to USDA.
We'll try to get those back as quickly as we can as well.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Ed Avalos
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark L. Pryor
PLANT AND ANIMAL PESTS AND DISEASES
FERAL SWINE
Question. Mr. Avalos, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) is responsible for controlling domestic plant and
animal pests and diseases, and guarding against the introduction of new
threats from foreign sources. This budget seeks a substantial increase
in funding to address the spreading feral hog problem, but cuts funding
for other established, but uncompleted, programs (such as the cotton
pests program, emerald ash borer, and chronic wasting disease).
Feral hogs are a growing menace, and pose substantial health and
economic risks to agriculture and rural areas. But, how do you evaluate
the relative threats of pests and diseases, and determine that for this
budget feral hogs pose the most immediate or potentially costly menace?
Answer. APHIS continues to evaluate its existing animal and plant
health programs to determine the best use of resources. For example,
the longstanding Cotton Pests program remains a priority for the agency
but we have proposed reductions due to the progress made over the years
toward eradication. As of the end of fiscal year 2012, we have
eradicated the boll weevil from 98 percent of 16 million acres of U.S.
cotton and pink bollworm from 99 percent of infested cotton acreage.
APHIS has also proposed reductions for other programs because we are
unable to make progress, such as in addressing the emerald ash borer
where tools to control the pest do not currently exist, or because the
States and industry are in a better position to address the disease,
such as where States have implemented herd certification programs for
the detection and prevention of chronic wasting disease. In addition,
for pest and disease programs that have been in place for many years,
and where State and local partners directly benefit from the program
activities, it is expected that all parties share in the cost of the
program.
Feral swine pose a growing threat and we do not currently have a
coordinated effort to address the problem. The expanding range and
increasing population of feral swine are significantly affecting animal
and human health; crops and livestock; rural, suburban and even urban
areas; and natural resources, causing an estimated $1.5 billion in
damages annually. The sooner we can begin a broad scale program, the
more likely we can minimize further expansion and damage, and minimize
expenditures, program duration, and ecological impacts. We have an
opportunity now to resolve an economic and public health problem before
the swine population is too large and too distributed to contain. In
addition, our plan to reduce feral swine is strongly supported by a
broad array of Federal and State, and tribal partners.
RESOURCE FLEXIBILITIES
Question. Please describe the flexibility that you have to address
new and emerging threats during the year.
Answer. APHIS' budget is structured by commodity group, such as
Cattle Health and Specialty Crop Pests. The structure provides the
agency the flexibility to prioritize existing as well as new and
emerging threats within each of these commodity groups and adjust
resources as necessary throughout the year. APHIS works with its
partners to develop an action plan for addressing the various threats,
including the estimated resources to be provided by each party. When a
new or emerging threat requires additional Federal resources of a
smaller scale in nature, the agency may use its Contingency Fund, which
was established for the prevention, control, and management of animal
and plant threats. In recent years, contingency funds allowed for an
initial response to the European grapevine moth in California and a
pilot effort in addressing feral swine in New Mexico. The Secretary of
Agriculture also has the authority to transfer funds, as necessary, to
address animal and plant health emergencies. In fiscal year 2012, APHIS
used flexibility within the Tree and Wood Pests line item, along with
additional funds the Secretary transferred from the Commodity Credit
Corporation, to respond to an infestation of Asian longhorned beetle
detected in Ohio, which was of larger scale in nature. These resource
flexibilities, along with the early detection and emergency response
capabilities of the agency, ensure that new and emerging agricultural
threats can be addressed as they arise.
AVIAN HEALTH
Question. What role does USDA have in monitoring the new H7N9 virus
in China?
Answer. USDA personnel continue to work closely with the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of the Interior
(DOI), and other Government agencies to monitor the H7N9 virus
situation, assess potential pathways for introduction, and modify
existing preparedness and response plans if deemed appropriate. USDA,
in collaboration with DOI, concluded that the potential for whole
genome introduction of H7N9 in North America is low. USDA has also
determined that the current sampling strategy for domestic commercial
poultry is more than adequate to detect avian influenza H7N9 from China
if it were introduced to the United States.
USDA officials overseas facilitate agricultural trade, maintain
contact with host country agricultural officials, monitor agricultural
health, and lead efforts in sanitary and phytosanitary standard
setting. USDA offices located in Asia provide points of contact for
U.S. agricultural interests and help collect relevant real-time
information, including updates on avian health and the current
situation with regard to the H7N9 virus. Specifically, APHIS' office in
Bangkok, Thailand, remains focused on avian health in Southeast Asia's
lesser developed economies. APHIS conducts surveillance and capacity
building activities, provides training and oversees epidemiology and
diagnostic testing throughout the region.
Question. How is the Department working to ensure the virus does
not infect our domestic poultry flocks?
Answer. USDA protects against the introduction of highly pathogenic
avian influenza into the United States and the spread of low pathogen
avian influenza within the United States. USDA personnel work
cooperatively with State animal health officials and the poultry
industry to conduct surveillance of breeding flocks at slaughter
plants, live-bird markets, livestock auctions, and poultry dealers. The
agency continues to work closely with stakeholders to address issues
and ensure program activities are sufficient to protect the health of
U.S. poultry.
USDA has determined that the risk of spread of the novel low
pathogenic avian influenza virus, H7N9, from China to the United States
through migratory waterfowl and trade is low. USDA surveillance
activities in wild birds would detect the virus should an introduction
occur. Our current efforts in monitoring for avian influenza meet the
requirements of our trading partners. Furthermore, USDA has trade
requirements in place to prevent the legal entry of potentially
infected materials.
The United States does not import poultry, unprocessed poultry
products, or non-domestic birds (with the exception of pet birds that
are quarantined and tested) from China. Additionally, low pathogen
influenza viruses are not found in meat or eggs. Therefore, there is
also a low risk of spread through products brought illegally into the
United States. Finally, our current efforts in monitoring for avian
influenza meet the requirements of our trading partners.
SEQUESTRATION AND FURLOUGHS OF GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS
ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES
Question. The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration's (GIPSA's) Grain Regulatory Services program
facilitates and promotes domestic and international trade of grains and
oilseeds, etc., by establishing standards, inspections, and weighing
services. Will sequestration disrupt provision of these services and
harm the domestic and international markets for these commodities?
Answer. Due to cost-savings efforts, GIPSA was able to avoid
furloughs in fiscal year 2013, and continue to provide the necessary
services for establishing standards, inspections, and weighing services
for the domestic and international trade of grains and oilseeds. As a
result, we do not anticipate any disruptions of services this fiscal
year.
Question. If so, do you foresee long-term damage to our export
trade?
Answer. Since GIPSA did not furlough employees, we do not currently
foresee immediate or long-term damage to our export trade. However,
continued decreases in funding for the Grain Regulatory Services may
require GIPSA to make reductions in the inspection and weighing
services that provide support for U.S. grain producers, handlers and
marketers of U.S. grain, domestic and export.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
FRESH PRODUCE IMPORT PROTOCOLS
Question. How often does APHIS review and evaluate existing fresh
produce import protocols given the many advancements in agricultural
sciences and technology, historical sampling data and risk level
assessment?
Answer. APHIS monitors and evaluates data from multiple sources on
a continual basis to ensure that inspection protocols provide
protection for U.S. agriculture without over-burdening importers.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agricultural specialists at U.S.
ports of entry conduct inspections on APHIS' behalf and enter the
inspection results into APHIS-managed databases. APHIS continually
evaluates this data to detect significant pest interception trends and
changes to produce import trends (for those commodities inspected by
CBP). APHIS may adjust port-of-entry inspection protocols based on
these trends and, depending on the situation, may require changes in
inspection techniques or changes in the levels or frequency of
inspections. For example, APHIS and CBP developed the National
Agricultural Cargo Release program several years ago to facilitate the
entry of high-volume, low-risk commodities such as onions, carrots, and
parsley from three major trading partners (Mexico, Guatemala, and
China). Currently, 34 commodities are covered by the program, which
expedites the entry of cargo by significantly reducing the frequency of
inspections. Low-risk cut flowers from five countries are also covered
through the Cut Flower Release Program. Through these programs, more
than 400,000 shipments of fruits and vegetables and 1.9 billion stems
of flowers were imported in fiscal year 2012. Since the programs began
in fiscal year 2006, more than 2.9 million shipments of fruits and
vegetables and more than 16.6 billion stems have been imported using
these streamlined risk-based efforts.
In addition to inspection protocols, APHIS uses other means to
ensure that the appropriate pest mitigation measures are in place to
protect U.S. agriculture while considering agricultural technology
advances. For example, APHIS partners with USDA's Agricultural Research
Service and universities to develop molecular and other diagnostic
techniques for improved identification, coordinates with counterparts
overseas to identify and address pest risk issues at their source, and
makes regulatory changes on an emergency action basis, if necessary, to
address immediate and significant risks. In addition, APHIS collects
pest information (for example, reports of new pests, pests in a new
area, or found attacking new hosts) offshore from various sources.
APHIS uses this information to assess potential import pathways and
determine whether regulatory or inspection protocol changes are
necessary to mitigate the risks. Additionally, APHIS evaluates new
phytosanitary treatments developed through technological advances as
they become available.
When the treatments are effective and/or exporting countries
request it, APHIS may adjust import regulations and protocols to permit
additional commodities to enter the United States and provide new
options for U.S. consumers and importing businesses. For example, the
use of irradiation as a phytosanitary treatment is currently used on
mangoes from Mexico and persimmons from South Africa.
Question. Is CBP data taken into consideration when APHIS revises
inspection protocols and does APHIS discuss these protocols with CBP?
Answer. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agricultural
specialists at U.S. ports of entry conduct inspections on APHIS' behalf
and enter the inspection results into APHIS-managed databases. APHIS
continually evaluates these data, as well as information from a variety
of other sources, to detect significant pest interception trends and
changes to produce import trends. If APHIS determines that inspection
protocols need to be adjusted to protect U.S. agricultural health,
APHIS discusses the situation and the specific recommendations for
protocol changes with CBP. Inspection protocols consist of both
recommendations related to amount, frequency, and methodology for
sampling, as well as inspection techniques designed to focus on high
risk pests and methods to best find them on various commodities. The
discussions with CBP take place in advance of implementing changes to
ensure that resources are available to conduct the work in a manner
that minimizes disruption to trade. APHIS is currently working with CBP
through the Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data
System to enhance data sharing, which will further improve APHIS' risk
evaluation and trend analysis.
Question. How does USDA work with CBP to ensure maximum efficiency
for safe and timely entry of fresh produce and adequately allocate
resources relative to the level of risk without creating an excessive
financial burden on the importer, thereby negatively impacting local,
regional businesses and consumers?
Answer. USDA works closely with Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
to focus resources towards inspection activities that will have the
greatest impact to ensure the safe and timely entry of fresh produce by
using data collected through the inspection process by CBP as well as
data from external resources, such as APHIS' offshore risk analysis
efforts. USDA provides guidance to CBP in various forms, including
import manuals, pest notifications, and inspectional training, to help
maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of port-of-entry inspections.
For example, APHIS and CBP developed the Cargo Release Authority (CRA)
program several years ago to ensure that cargo is not held
unnecessarily for pests of low risk. Through this program, APHIS
provides training to CBP agricultural specialists to identify
frequently intercepted, low-risk insects. CBP agricultural specialists
can earn CRA for 173 different species or groups of organisms. Once CBP
agricultural specialists have demonstrated the ability to reliably
identify a particular insect and have earned the CRA for that insect,
they can release future shipments affected by that insect without
waiting for additional confirmation from APHIS.
Additionally, APHIS and CBP developed the National Agricultural
Cargo Release program several years ago to facilitate the entry of
high-volume, low-risk commodities such as onions, carrots, and parsley
from three major trading partners (Mexico, Guatemala, and China).
Currently, 34 commodities are covered by the program, which expedites
the entry of cargo by significantly reducing the frequency of
inspections. Low-risk cut flowers from five countries are also covered
through the Cut Flower Release Program. Through these programs, more
than 400,000 shipments of fruits and vegetables and 1.9 billion stems
of flowers were imported in fiscal year 2012. Since the programs began
in fiscal year 2006, more than 2.9 million shipments of fruits and
vegetables and more than 16.6 billion stems have been imported, saving
importers time through less frequent inspections. APHIS and CBP
continue to work together to ensure that agricultural inspections are
effective, efficient, and risk-based.
Question. How does USDA collaborate with CBP to ensure proper
resources are available so that USDA inspections can be completed
within on 1 day of freight being available after discharging from the
vessel?
Answer. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agricultural
specialists conduct inspections on APHIS' behalf, and these inspections
may not always be conducted within 1 day of freight discharge. Once
shipments are inspected, CBP forwards any interceptions for which the
CBP agricultural specialist does not have CRA to APHIS identifiers
located at 32 ports of entry. In most cases, APHIS identifiers can make
the identification immediately. Additionally, identifiers have a state-
of-the art digital imaging system so that, in the event of an unusual
or difficult specimen to identify, images of the organism can be
forwarded to a network of highly specialized experts in the various
fields of entomology, plant pathology, botany, etc., to help make the
identification. In certain cases, APHIS port-of-entry identifiers need
to send specimens to APHIS national specialists or to specialists at
the USDA Agricultural Research Service Systematic Entomology
Laboratory, all of whom understand the need for immediate
identification and treat these specimens as urgent cases. In these
cases, APHIS is able to complete the vast majority of identifications
and report back to CBP within 1 working day.
______
Questions Submitted to Dr. Catherine Woteki
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark L. Pryor
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Question. Dr. Woteki, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
budget includes $155 million to build a new poultry lab. Why did you
decide, in this budget climate, to ask for a brand new, very expensive
building, instead of attempting to take care of some of the deferred
maintenance needs at the rest of the ARS labs?
Answer. At the request of Congress and the Secretary of
Agriculture, the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) conducted a
review of its research facilities and presented a report to Congress in
April 2012, which details a Capital Investment Strategy for the agency.
The report establishes criteria for assessing and determining capital
investment needs and priorities for ARS scientific research
laboratories, based upon relative facility physical conditions and
research program priorities. The highest priority facility need
identified through this process was a new National Poultry Research
Center which will enable needed research on poultry diseases to be
conducted.
ARS research on poultry diseases is critical to American
agriculture. The United States is the world's largest poultry producer,
the second-largest exporter of poultry meat, and a major egg producer.
Poultry diseases such as avian influenza, virulent Newcastle disease,
Marek's disease, and avian leukosis threaten our national poultry
industry and our export markets. ARS currently conducts poultry disease
research at the Avian Diseases and Oncology Laboratory (ADOL) in East
Lansing, Michigan, and at the Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory
(SEPRL) in Athens, Georgia. The fiscal year 2014 President's budget
proposes to consolidate ADOL with SEPRL in Athens, Georgia. The
proposed consolidation of ARS poultry resources into a National Poultry
Research Center will enable the integration of our avian genomics
research program at ADOL with our avian diseases research program at
SEPRL and provide significant programmatic synergies and critical mass
needed to implement a national research program responsive to the needs
of the poultry industry.
The existing facilities at both ADOL and SEPRL require major
improvements because the structures and systems have exceeded their
useful service life. Both of these facilities have outdated equipment
for biological containment, insufficient laboratory space, and
facility-imposed inefficiencies in program and facilities operations.
SEPRL has Biosafety Level (BSL)-2 Laboratory and BSL-3 Ag facilities
that were constructed in 1964 and 1976. There are 32 small, inefficient
buildings designed for four scientists and support staff. Currently,
there are 11 ARS scientists and their support staff. Critical, cutting-
edge research that is needed to address poultry diseases cannot be
conducted because of these facility limitations. A new facility is
required to continue efforts to protect our poultry industries from new
and emerging influenza viruses and emerging/exotic poultry diseases
which threaten the Nation's poultry industry and potentially U.S.
public health. The new National Poultry Research Center will have ABSL-
3E animal and BSL-3E laboratory space which will enable ARS scientists
to handle and conduct research on exotic poultry diseases. These are
facilities that meet requirements for handling infectious materials and
have special engineering and design features to prevent exposure to
dangerous diseases. ARS infrastructure, including our laboratories, is
a valuable asset for science and we are committed to leveraging our
assets to increase USDA's capacity to conduct critical research and to
solve emerging problems.
______
Questions Submitted to Dr. Elisabeth Hagen
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark L. Pryor
COOPERATIVE INTERSTATE SHIPMENT PROGRAM
Question. Dr. Hagen, your request includes $2.4 million and a staff
increase of 15 employees to continue implementation and expansion of
the Cooperative Interstate Shipment Program. This program will assist
small and very small meat and poultry plants in expanding business
opportunities through interstate commerce.
Please describe how this program works and the need for 15
additional employees.
Answer. Section 11015 of title XI of the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 farm bill), enacted on June 18, 2008,
amended the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (PPIA) to establish the Cooperative Inspection Shipment
(CIS) program under which certain small and very small State-inspected
establishments will be eligible to ship meat and poultry products in
interstate commerce. The law provides that the Secretary of Agriculture
(FSIS by delegation) ``in coordination with the appropriate State
agency of the State in which the establishment is located,'' may select
State-inspected establishments with 25 or fewer employees to ship meat
and poultry products in interstate commerce. The program is limited to
establishments located in States that have established and continue to
maintain an ``at least equal to'' State meat or poultry inspection
(MPI) program. Inspection services for these establishments must be
provided by State inspection personnel that have ``undergone all
necessary inspection training and certification to assist the Secretary
with the administration and enforcement of [the acts]''. Meat and
poultry products inspected and passed by the State inspection personnel
will bear a ``Federal mark, stamp, tag, or label of inspection'' and
will be permitted to be shipped in interstate commerce.
The law requires that FSIS designate an employee to ``provide
oversight and enforcement'' of the program. The statute requires FSIS
to appoint a Federal employee to be a Selected Establishment
Coordinator (SEC) and the SEC is required by statute to visit selected
establishments with a frequency that is appropriate to ensure that such
establishments are operating in manner that is consistent with the FMIA
and PPIA. Based on a mission analysis, we estimate that full
implementation of the CIS will require 15 full-time equivalent FSIS
employees to provide oversight and enforcement as well as complete
periodical audits of the State inspection program laboratory systems to
ensure the sampling and testing program are equivalent to the Federal
program.
FSIS published a final rule to implement the CIS program on May 2,
2011 (see ``Cooperative Inspection Programs: Interstate Shipment of
Meat and Poultry Products,'' available on the Internet at: http://
www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/2008-0039F.pdf). The regulations
that implement the CIS program are in 9 CFR 321.3, 9 CFR part 332, 9
CFR 381.187, and 9 CFR part 381 subpart Z.
Question. How are costs shared between the Department and
participating States?
Answer. The law requires that FSIS reimburse a State for costs
related to the inspection of selected establishments in the State in an
amount of not less than 60 percent of eligible State costs. Currently,
FSIS is reimbursing States for 60 percent of their eligible costs. The
law also states that FSIS ``may provide grants to appropriate State
agencies to assist the appropriate State agencies in helping
establishments covered by this Act to transition to selected
establishments''. This includes normal operating expenses associated
with field operations including office space, communications costs,
information technology costs such as laptops, other equipment, and
travel costs.
Question. What do you think the ultimate potential is in terms of
increasing the value of products shipped, jobs and income generated?
Answer. Under the CIS program, small, State-inspected businesses
will be allowed to sell meat products across State lines. Prior to the
establishment of this program, State-inspected businesses could only
sell products within their State. The Cooperative Interstate Shipment
(CIS) program will expand economic opportunities for America's small
meat and poultry processors, strengthen State and local economies, and
increase consumer access to safe, locally produced food. The CIS
program allows a small processor to sell products to neighbors in
nearby States. A number of small plants believe that access to this
interstate shipment will help them develop profitable niche markets for
their products. The CIS program expands the market opportunities for
meat from local processors and makes these small businesses more
viable, while also ensuring that participating establishments have
robust food safety systems in place to produce safe food for consumers.
In addition, the CIS program is going to focus on strengthening the
critical connection between farmers and consumers and supporting local
and regional food systems.
IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW POULTRY INSPECTION RULE
Question. The Department is continuing to move forward with the
implementation of new methods of poultry inspection. These new
procedures will shift more of the visual inspection responsibilities to
industry personnel. This will reduce the number of FSIS online carcass
inspectors, allow faster line speeds, and re-focus FSIS efforts on
improved food safety. We appreciate that USDA has piloted and analyzed
these procedures at a variety of plants, for some years.
Several swine slaughter plants were included in this pilot project.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has just released an audit of
swine slaughter operations which includes a review of these plants.
The OIG found that ``The swine HIMP pilot program lacks sufficient
oversight.'' Specifically, it found that FSIS did not evaluate whether
the program resulted in measurable improvements to the inspection
process. FSIS allowed one plant to forgo standard policy and not
perform required visual inspections. Furthermore, three of the five
pilot plants audited had some of the highest numbers of regulation
violations (``non-compliance records'') of all plants nationwide.
What is your response to these criticisms?
Answer. It is important to note that HIMP for poultry and HIMP for
swine are not the same pilot programs, so they cannot be compared to
each other.
FSIS intends to complete an evaluation of HIMP market hog
establishments by March 31, 2014, including an analysis of HIMP
establishments' performance compared to non-HIMP establishments as well
as their performance with respect to performance standards established
by an independent consulting firm contractor. In the meantime, it is
important to note that the same criteria for regulatory compliance are
applied to both non-HIMP and HIMP establishments. Establishments that
exhibit a pattern of serious regulatory non-compliance may be subject
to a Notice of Intended Enforcement Action, a suspension of inspection
activities, and even withdrawal of the grant of inspection.
Question. What are your plans regarding future changes in swine
inspection procedures?
Answer. FSIS has no plans to change swine inspection procedures at
this time. If the agency decides to make any changes in the future,
FSIS will follow the normal notice-and-comment rulemaking process.
Question. If you expand the regulation to include swine slaughter,
can you provide assurance that the Nation's food safety will not be
jeopardized?
Answer. Yes. FSIS does not make policy changes unless the agency
determines that those changes will help us to better ensure food safety
and protect public health.
______
Questions Submitted By Senator Thad Cochran
MECHANICALLY SEPARATED POULTRY MEAT
Question. USDA is actively considering proposals to impose new
requirements on the treatment of mechanically separated poultry meat.
There are concerns that these new rules could impose significant
economic harm on the poultry industry--particularly with regard to
exports. The export value of these products make up about 5 percent of
the value of all U.S. poultry exports each year. We certainly do not
want to place this market in jeopardy.
Has USDA conducted a full economic impact analysis of the
requirements and policies announced in the notice dealing with
mechanically separated poultry meat?
Answer. FSIS did not analyze the economic impact of the notice
because the notice did not impose any new sampling requirements on
establishments.
Question. Is the USDA coordinating with industry and other
departments to ensure these rules don't unnecessarily disrupt valuable
markets?
Answer. Yes. Although no country has taken action against these
products at this time, we understand the industry's concerns about the
potential impact on trade if this action is misunderstood by trading
partners. Since the announcement of this action, FAS has assisted
industry in exploring alternatives that could minimize the potential
for negative responses by foreign governments.
FSIS solicited comments from the public, including industry, in the
December 6, 2012, notice. On March 7, 2013, FSIS extended the original
comment period until April 20, 2013 (78 Federal Register 14635.) The
agency expects to respond to the comments in a separate Federal
Register notice.
Development of the December 2012 notice was based on protecting the
public health and fulfilling FSIS' statutory and regulatory obligations
to ensure food safety. The outbreaks described in the notice indicate a
change that requires a reassessment of HACCP plans based on the
existing regulation (9 CFR 417.4(a)(3)). There are no new requirements
as a result of the notice. Establishments can continue to export
comminuted product, even if FSIS conducts testing of the product.
______
Questions Submitted to Kevin Concannon
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark L. Pryor
COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM
Question. Mr. Concannon, the budget requests a significant increase
for Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). When looking at the
increase it seems the majority is not for food costs but for
administrative expenses.
Can you explain why the budget is requesting such a large increase
for this program?
Answer. The increased funding for CSFP is necessary to maintain
current program participation, and will be used for food purchases.
Administrative grants are determined by a legislatively mandated
adjustment in the State and local expenditure index for State and local
agencies.
Question. Since no new States are being added, is the majority of
the increase due to food costs or administrative expenses?
Answer. Ninety-two percent (92 percent) of the increase in funding
for CSFP is due to food costs.
PUBLIC HEALTH INFORMATION SYSTEM
Question. We have been apprised that the Public Health Information
System (PHIS) is very slow and unwieldy for users. If data input is
interrupted due to other work requirements, PHIS ``times out'' the user
and forces them to re-enter data. We are told that users frequently
take their laptops home to enter data uninterrupted. Surely with the
investments made in PHIS, we can expect a better product than this.
Are you aware of these problems?
Answer. The agency is aware of some customers experiencing
connectivity issues when trying to use PHIS and improving connectivity
of PHIS is the top priority of the Administrator. It is important to
note that the agency does not expect, nor does it allow its inspection
program personnel to take their laptops home to enter data into PHIS
outside of their tour of duty. That being said, issues such as the
system being ``slow and unwieldy,'' are typically caused by Internet
connectivity and not by PHIS. These connectivity issues have to do with
available commercial technology in an area, the use of mandated
contract carriers and USDA network traffic; much of this is outside of
the agency's control. In addition, PHIS meets Federal security
guidelines and times out when users are inactive.
FSIS has inspection personnel in plants across the country, and
unfortunately, connectivity is not as consistent in some rural parts of
the country as it is in more urban areas. A small percentage of FSIS
field personnel, who are mostly located in rural areas, are
experiencing connectivity issues. The agency is working toward
implementing additional wired and wireless solutions for our personnel
with Internet connectivity issues. One solution that has already been
implemented is the availability of a disconnected version of PHIS.
Personnel can enter data into this disconnected version when Internet
connectivity is unavailable, and upload that data to PHIS once the
Internet is available. Connectivity is not provided at every
establishment; rather it is provided at large and/or high-volume
establishments and at least at one point on every patrol assignment.
Question. How much has been invested in PHIS to date?
Answer. As of May 2013 the agency has invested $57.9 million in the
Development and Operations and Maintenance of PHIS.
Question. Is development of PHIS complete now or are you still
enhancing the product?
Answer. PHIS development continues. Initially, FSIS' immediate
focus was on its domestic component and getting approximately 4,500
field employees transitioned onto the system. Once full domestic
implementation was completed in January 2012, FSIS turned its attention
to the system's import component. Having completed implementation of
these two high-priority components, FSIS launched the system to
industry users and State meat and poultry inspection programs. In the
next fiscal year, FSIS will continue improving and enhancing the
components that have already been implemented, while also integrating
the agency's foreign equivalence and export processes.
Question. What are the annual operating costs of PHIS?
Answer. The agency projects future operations and maintenance costs
for PHIS to be approximately $1,340,903 per year.
Question. What are your plans to increase the speed and usefulness
of this system?
Answer. The agency is taking a multifaceted approach to enhancing
the system for speed and utility. We are constantly looking at ways to
improve the system, agency processes, training and support guidance as
well as new enhancements and updates released on a regular basis. In
addition, we are prioritizing increased use of the disconnected version
of PHIS with personnel located in areas where Internet connectivity is
unavailable. This disconnected version allows personnel to record
critical food safety information while Internet connectivity is
unavailable and upload it to PHIS at a location on their assignment
where the Internet is available.
FOOD WASTE
Question. There has been some concern that increasing the nutrition
standards for foods has caused increased plate waste. Kids are simply
throwing out that apple and going to class hungry. The Little Rock
School District has come up with an innovative approach to dealing with
this. All food groups are represented by a color and students must
select three groups including at least one fruit or vegetable.
Are you concerned with increased plate waste?
Answer. Plate waste has been a long-standing concern of USDA, which
has examined the issue in various studies and developed several
policies to decrease plate waste. For instance, ``offer versus serve''
is a service method that allows students to select only those foods
they intend to eat. It was developed to prevent food waste and
encourage the consumption of healthful foods. Additionally, USDA
continues to offer extensive technical assistance to States and local
agencies in an effort to assist in the reduction of plate waste in
cafeterias, including the Recipes for Healthy Kids Competition, Chefs
Move to Schools, fact sheets, and other resources offered through Food
and Nutrition Service's (FNS's) Team Nutrition.
USDA is committed to future research to expand understanding of the
issue. A study will be conducted in school year 2014-2015 that will
examine the extent of plate waste in the school meal programs, looking
at both types of foods and specific nutrients lost.
Question. What is FNS doing to encourage school districts to come
up with creative ways to help students eat more fruits and vegetables,
as we're seeing in Little Rock?
Answer. FNS recognizes that innovative approaches can increase
consumption of school meals. FNS is collaborating with the Economic
Research Service to support research conducted by the Cornell Center
for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs. The Center's
Smarter Lunchrooms Initiative focuses on new efforts to reduce plate
waste, particularly fruits and vegetables, in school meal programs by
going beyond what is served to how it is served--including lighting,
placement of foods, creative food item names, and signage. For
instance, the Center has found that relabeling foods with appealing
names resulted in an increase in the sale of vegetables in the school
cafeteria by 27 percent. We are currently working to increase State and
local awareness of and access to the ample resources and training
available from the Center.
We also know that it is very important that schools provide enough
time to eat, and at the right time of day. For example, implementing
``grab and go'' meals in addition to traditional meal service in the
school cafeteria may provide students with the flexibility to eat in a
preferred setting and at a time when they are most hungry. Providing
meals just before or after physical activity can also increase student
appetite and meal appeal. Lastly, we recognize the importance of
resource sharing, and have created the Best Practices Sharing Center
Web site, which allows States and schools to share their own innovative
menus, training materials, and signage with a nationwide audience.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
WIC ENROLLMENT TRENDS
Question. The WIC program is designed for low-income infants,
children up to age 5 and pregnant and postpartum women. The USDA and
WIC repeatedly point to its own data to show that the program is being
increasingly utilized by women and children. The data reflects that WIC
enrollment encompasses 53 percent of all the infants in the country.
This seems to be a figure that exceeds other measures of infant and
child poverty. Accordingly, please outline what policies have led to
such an increase in WIC enrollment?
Answer. A USDA analysis released in January 2013 estimated that
just over 2 million infants, fully half of the infants in the United
States, had family incomes below 185 percent of the Federal Poverty
Guidelines in 2010 (National and State-Level Estimates of Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
Eligibles and Program Reach, 2010). These infants would be income
eligible for WIC because they meet the income requirements established
by the Child Nutrition Act. The increase in enrollment was not a result
of changes in WIC policies.
USDA's most recent analysis of State WIC administrative data showed
that 69 percent of WIC participants received benefits through SNAP,
TANF, or Medicaid in 2010. But that same data finds that the great
majority of those WIC participants reported incomes below 185 percent
of the poverty guidelines. Among all participants for whom we have
income information in 2010, just 2.9 percent reported incomes above the
185 percent threshold. For infants, the number was 2.7 percent.
LOCAL AND STATE INCOME ELIGIBILITY DISCRETION
Question. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) produced a
study showing extensive State-level and local WIC agency discretion
regarding aspects of measuring income for assessing eligibility. States
and local WIC agencies set the terms of what to include or exclude when
counting income, including what time periods must be considered when
measuring income, or the size of the family unit used to calculate
income. Apparently, over 60 percent of the States require income data
reflecting only the last 30 days, even though the Federal standard for
WIC eligibility is ``annual gross household income.'' Furthermore, the
States evaluate only the income of the mother and child, and disregard
income of any other member of the household. We understand that in
response to the GAO report in April 2013, FNS issued new income
eligibility guidance to the States that is uncannily similar to FNS's
14-year-old 1999 income eligibility determination guidance in effect at
the time GAO identified extensive inconsistencies across State and
local WIC agency income eligibility determinations. How does FNS intend
to monitor State and local WIC agency compliance with this new
guidance, given that there is no training or technical assistance
provided along with the new guidance to ensure compliance?
Answer. In April 2013, FNS issued updated guidance to State
agencies to help standardize income eligibility determinations. The
guidance consolidates policy memoranda issued over the past several
years. Included in the guidance are various aspects of WIC
certification, including, but not limited to: income eligibility
guidelines, definition of income (including military income),
determination of family/household income and adjunctive/automatic
income eligibility, clarification on the use of ``current'' income, and
the number of temporary certifications allowed when an applicant lacks
necessary income documentation. FNS is also hosting regional webinars
for State agencies to provide technical assistance on the guidance.
In addition, management evaluations (MEs) conducted by FNS
routinely address issues related to income eligibility determinations.
The WIC ME Tool, a Web-based, interactive tool implemented in fiscal
year 2010, establishes standard questions to be used across regions and
allows FNS to generate reports to identify common findings and develop
policies or other corrective actions. FNS will develop a process, which
will be effective October 1, 2013, for the systematic review and
analysis of WIC certification/eligibility MEs at the national office
level. The process will help FNS identify areas in need of correction
or improvement so that additional guidance and technical assistance can
be provided to FNS regional offices and WIC State agencies as necessary
and appropriate.
FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW
Question. Apparently, FNS for some years has been collecting USDA
regional offices' reports of State and local WIC agencies' compliance
with Federal WIC policy, including income eligibility determinations.
However, the GAO observed that FNS refrains from examining those
reports to assess State or local WIC agency compliance with Federal
regulations. How can FNS be assured of the integrity of the WIC program
when it does not monitor State and local WIC agencies' compliance with
Federal policies, especially in the area of income eligibility
determinations? What does FNS intend to do to rectify these issues in
the future?
Answer. FNS routinely reviews all WIC State agencies for compliance
with Program operation and administration requirements, including the
critical area of certification and eligibility, during its management
evaluation reviews. Where deficiencies are found, FNS requires that
State agencies undertake corrective actions and monitors compliance
with those corrective action plans. To improve WIC oversight and
administration, and in response to the GAO's recommendation, FNS will
develop a process, effective October 1, 2013, for systematically
reviewing its monitoring reports to assess national program risks and
target assistance specific to WIC certification and eligibility.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Pryor. The subcommittee will meet again for its
final fiscal year 2014 budget hearing at 10 a.m. on Thursday,
May 23, in this room. At that time, we'll hear testimony from
USDA undersecretaries for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services, Natural Resources and Environment, and Rural
Development.
So again, I want to thank you all for your attendance
today. And with that, the hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., Thursday, May 16, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
May 23.]