[Senate Hearing 113-877]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[The following testimonies were received by the
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies for inclusion in the
record. The submitted materials relate to the fiscal year 2015
budget request for programs within the subcommittee's
jurisdiction.]
Prepared Statement of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
Dear Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies: The Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony for the
fiscal year 2015 appropriations. The Academy is the world's largest
organization of food and nutrition professionals, and is committed to
improving the nation's health with nutrition services and interventions
provided by registered dietitian nutritionists. Nationwide, The Academy
has over 75,000 members.
As Congress begins work on fiscal year 2015 appropriations, we
strongly urge you to fully fund Federal nutrition programs that will
provide a return on investment to improve health. Investment in these
programs through the appropriations process will help prevent costly
healthcare expenses due to chronic diseases.
agriculture, food and nutrition research
As you consider the fiscal year 2015 budget, we ask for your
support of the President's budget for the National Institute of Food
and Agriculture (NIFA). The National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA) funds agriculture and nutrition research that is vital for
communities and the nation to have new technologies and intervention to
have healthy Americans. In doing so, we ask that you:
--Continue to support NIFA research efforts that work with local
communities and states to conduct high-quality research to help
assure that our food supply is adequate for the future; and
--Consider restoring the funding for Agricultural Research Services
(ARS) to 2014 levels. ARS is an essential in-house, scientific
research agency. This agency often provides the solutions to
food and nutrition problems that affect Americans every day,
from field to table.
supplemental nutrition assistance program (snap)
nutrition education and obesity prevention grant program (snap-ed)
SNAP helps to put food on the table for about 47 million people
each month. SNAP participation closely follows changes in unemployment
and underemployment and so is responsive to changes in need. SNAP-Ed
empowers participants to make healthy food choices using this knowledge
received from the innovative and engaging nutrition education to
purchase, prepare and store nutritious foods. During this
appropriations cycle, we ask that you:
--Support SNAP as it continues to respond to the elevated need for
food assistance with timely benefits; and
--Fund SNAP-Ed at $407 million, as mandated in the Food and Nutrition
Act of 2008.
the emergency food assistance program (tefap)
TEFAP is a win/win for farmers, producers, processors and low-
income consumers to assure access to healthy foods through our nation's
charitable food system, delivering nutrient-rich food through pantries,
shelters, and kitchens and providing support for storage and
distribution. The TEFAP program staff works in tandem with SNAP-Ed
staff to help assure the consumption of these foods through nutrition
education including preparation and safe storage. We ask that you:
--Provide the authorized funding level of $100 million for TEFAP
storage and distribution funds. The current funding level of
$49 million only covers 33 percent of the cost of distributing
TEFAP commodities.
--Fund TEFAP commodities at $324 million, as provided by the 2014
farm bill. TEFAP commodities are distributed to low-income
people through food banks, pantries, kitchens and shelters.
commodity supplemental food program (csfp)
CSFP provides a nutritious monthly food package to approximately
580,000 low-income participants, primarily to vulnerable low-income
seniors. The CSFP food package is designed to meet the specific
nutritional needs of this target population, combating the poor health
conditions often found in food insecure seniors. We ask that you:
--Fund CSFP at $208 million, the amount necessary to maintain current
caseload; and
--Provide an additional $5 million allow CSFP to serve the six
additional states who meet the criteria set out by USDA for a
quality program (CT, HI, ID, MD, MA, RI).
child nutrition programs
Child nutrition programs operate in school, daycare, after school,
and summer settings, providing nutritious meals and snacks to fuel
children with the energy they need to thrive in the classroom and
beyond.
School Meals
We ask that you:
--Support the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast
Program, Summer Food Service Program, Child and Adult Care Food
Program, and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to provide
children with nutritious meals and snacks; and
--Provide $35 million in grants for school meal equipment to help
schools upgrade their kitchen equipment. This will allow
schools to serve healthier meals at a more reasonable price,
and will expand access to feeding programs. This is a long
overdue change for schools.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children
(WIC)
WIC serves low-income women and young children until the age of
five, providing them with a nutritious monthly food package, nutrition
education, healthcare and social service referrals to ensure that this
at-risk population receives the quality nutrition and healthcare
essential for healthy growth and development. Please:
--Fund WIC at $6.823 billion to support a projected caseload of 8.7
million participants. Monitor food cost inflation and caseload
to ensure that appropriated levels meet anticipated needs.
Provide $150 million to replenish the WIC Contingency Fund for
unforeseen food cost or participation increases.
--Provide $60 million for breastfeeding peer counselors to improve
breastfeeding initiation and duration among the target
population, $30 million for Management Information Systems/
Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) funding to improve client
access, retailer efficiency, and program integrity, $14 million
for infrastructure improvements, and $5 million for program
research and evaluation.
supporting local farmers and improving health
To support local farmers while improving the health of Americans,
we ask that you:
--Provide $17 million for WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program
(FMNP), which provides vouchers to low-income women, infants,
and children;
--Provide $21 million for the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition
Program, which provides vouchers for low-income seniors; and
--Provide $9 million for Community Food Projects to meet food needs
of low-income people, increase community self-reliance, and
promote comprehensive responses to food, farm and nutrition
issues.
developing leaders
To ensure a pipeline of leaders dedicated to improving health and
reducing hunger in our country, we ask that you:
--Provide $3 million for the Congressional Hunger Center for the
operation of the Bill Emerson National Hunger Fellowships and
Mickey Leland International Hunger Fellowships, which focus on
developing solutions to hunger based on experience at local
field placements and national policy organizations.
We appreciate your support on these recommendations. We know that
these expenditures will make for smart, long-term investments into the
health of Americans.
[This statement was submitted by Mary Pat Raimondi MS, RD Vice
President, Strategic Policy and Partnerships Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics.]
______
Prepared Statement the of Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has submitted testimony for
the fiscal year 2015 appropriations. We would like to add an additional
request that will help improve the health of Americans. As we shared in
our previous letter, the Academy is the world's largest organization of
food and nutrition professionals, and is committed to improving the
nation's health with nutrition services and interventions provided by
registered dietitian nutritionists. Nationwide, the Academy has over
75,000 members.
The newly-passed Agricultural Act of 2014 offers new opportunities
for healthy foods to be incorporated in the diet. Pulse foods are some
of the best sources of important nutrients including dietary fiber,
vegetable protein, iron and potassium that one can have in his or her
diet. Introducing children to pulse foods early in life will help
develop life-long habits to incorporate these foods in their diets.
Encouraging healthy eating habits in our school children will help
prevent chronic health issues, like obesity and type-2 diabetes. Pulse
foods are also known to be economical sources of protein that can help
to reduce hunger throughout the world.\1\ Having research dollars for
pulse foods will promote the benefits and identify new ways of
increasing consumption of these foods. We asked that you include the
following in funding:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dilis V, Trichopoulou A (2009) Nutritional and health
properties of pulses. Mediterranean Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism
1: 149-157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
pulse crop health initiative-fiscal year 2015 appropriation request $25
million
The Pulse Crop Health Initiative was included in Section 7209 (e)
of the Research Title of the Agricultural Act of 2014. The law provides
an authorization of $125 million dollars over the next 5 years to find
solutions, through research on pulse crops, to the critical health,
functionality, sustainability and food security challenges facing U.S.
citizens and the global community. The initiative will focus on three
major research areas: health and nutrition, increasing functionality
and enhancing productivity and sustainability of pulse crops. We ask
you to fully fund the Pulse Crop Health Initiative in the Agriculture
Act of 2014 with an appropriation of $25 million for fiscal year 2015.
school pulse crop products program-fiscal year 2015 appropriation
request $2 million
The Pulse Crop Products program was included in Section 4213 of the
Nutrition Title of the Agricultural Act of 2014. The law authorizes $10
million dollars over the next 5 years. The purpose of the Pulse Crop
Products program is to increase awareness of nutrient-dense pulse crops
and increase their use in school meals. We ask you to fully fund the
School Pulse Crop Products program in the Agricultural Act of 2014 with
an appropriation of $2 million for fiscal year 2015.
[This statement was submitted by Mary Pat Raimondi, Vice President,
Strategic Policy and Partnerships of the Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
(AFRI) Coalition
The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Coalition is
pleased to submit the following testimony on the fiscal year 2015
appropriation for the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Agriculture
and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). The AFRI Coalition, comprised of
more than forty scientific societies and science advocacy organizations
is dedicated to raising awareness of the importance of AFRI and the
critical research it funds.
The AFRI Coalition is concerned with the Administration's proposed
funding level for AFRI, and strongly urges Congress to fund AFRI with
at least $360 million in fiscal year 2015, far less than its authorized
level of $700 million.
AFRI, administered by the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA), is the premier competitive grants program for
fundamental and applied research, extension and education in support of
our nation's food and agricultural systems. AFRI funds high priority
research grants in areas of critical concern to the United States
including: food safety and security, agricultural production and
products, plant and animal health, nutrition and human health and
agricultural economics and others.
Research supported by AFRI aims to solve critical scientific,
agricultural and societal problems and deserves steady, predictable and
sustainable funding. The future of our food and agricultural systems, a
basis for human health, rely on it. Additionally, for every Federal
dollar spent on publicly funded agricultural research, $20 or more is
generated in the U.S. economy.\1\ A strengthened commitment to
investments in science for food and agriculture, especially during
difficult economic times, is essential to maintain and grow our
nation's food, economic and national security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Economic Returns to U.S. Public Agricultural Research,
Alston, Julian M.; Andersen, Matthew A.; James, Jennifer S.; Pardey,
Philip G., University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics,
July 2011, http://purl.umn.edu/95522.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AFRI Coalition appreciates the opportunity to provide written
testimony and would be pleased to assist the Subcommittee as it
considers the fiscal year 2015 appropriation for AFRI. To learn more
about the Coalition or to see a list of members, please visit: http://
africoalition.org.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA
Chairman Pryor and Ranking Member Blunt: The Alliance for a
Stronger FDA respectfully requests that the Subcommittee recognize the
critical role and expanding public health mission of the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration by providing fiscal year 15 budget authority
appropriations of $2.784 billion for the agency. This amount is $223
million above fiscal year 14 BA appropriations funding and $200 million
above the President's request for BA appropriations.
The Alliance is a 200-member coalition of all FDA's stakeholders--
consumers, patients, health professionals, trade groups and industry.
Our sole purpose is to advocate for increased appropriated resources
for the FDA, an agency that oversees 100 percent of drugs, vaccines,
medical devices, dietary supplements and personal care products and 80
percent of our nation's food supply.
Altogether, the products and industries regulated by FDA account
for nearly 25 percent of all consumer spending in the United States. A
strong FDA is essential to the U.S. economy, jobs, and the balance of
trade and is critical to homeland security. Unlike other U.S.
regulatory agencies, all FDA stakeholders (including consumers,
patients and industry) support increased funding for the agency.
The current year's budget authority (BA) appropriation of $2.561
billion helped FDA rebound from the fiscal year 13 sequester and regain
and slightly advance above its fiscal year 12 funding level. However,
in the interim, the continuing growth of FDA's responsibilities has
meant that the appropriation is still dramatically less than the amount
the agency needs. The agency's mission is ``at risk.''
recognizing that fda's public health mission is vital and growing
New laws take enormous resources to implement. Once implemented,
they permanently increase agency responsibilities. Since 2009, Congress
has identified a number of additional public health needs that fall
within FDA's jurisdiction, resulting in at least seven new laws:
--Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (2009)
--Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (2010)
--Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act (2010)
--Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act (2010)
--Food Safety Modernization Act (2011),
--FDA Safety and Innovation Act (2012), including re-authorization of
the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric
Research Equity Act
--Drug Quality and Security Act (2013)
Other growing responsibilities include: globalization, scientific
complexity, promoting innovation to benefit patients and consumers,
public health emergencies, national security, and increasing industry
size and activity. In sum, the current appropriations level is totally
inadequate to make up for decades of underfunding AND new and growing
responsibilities, including but not limited to new laws enacted since
2009.
globalization and scientific complexity require fda to expand its
activities each year to protect and expand public and individual health
Even were Congress not active in legislating new mandates for FDA,
the agency's mission and responsibilities would grow enormously each
year for reasons unrelated to new laws. Our remarks will concentrate on
two: globalization and increasing scientific complexity.
One of FDA's highest priorities over the last 6 years has been to
adjust for the accelerating globalization in all product categories
overseen by the agency. For example:
--Food Imports are growing 10 percent annually. Altogether, 10-15
percent of all food consumed in the U.S. is imported. This
includes nearly 2/3 of fruits and vegetables and 80 percent of
seafood.
--Device Imports are also growing about 10 percent annually.
Currently, about 50 percent of all medical devices used in the
US are imported.
--Drug Imports are growing quickly, about 13 percent annually. About
80 percent of active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) are
manufactured abroad, as are 40 percent of finished drugs.
Inspections at U.S. ports-of-entry are critical, but ultimately
less than 2 percent of shipments can be inspected. Instead, FDA is
following Congressional direction by increasing foreign inspections and
establishing foreign offices to work globally to improve the standards
and quality of products entering the U.S.
The value of this approach cannot really be quantified. For
example, the cost of illness, death and lost markets--from just a
single bad actor in a single food category--can cost as much or more
than the entire investment we put into FDA's food safety activities.
Drugs and devices are harder to track for a variety of reasons, but
there is no reason to doubt a similar effect.
Greater scientific complexity is diffused into every part of the
agency and its mission. FDA has adopted a number of initiatives,
including creation of a commissioner-level science office, investment
in regulatory science, expanded and more intensive training, changes in
time and manpower allotments for complex assignments, and significant
reworking of the drug and medical device approval pathways to benefit
patients. Further, food and medical product safety inspections have
also become more complex--requiring more scientific training, more
preparation and, often, more time during the inspection itself.
Specifically, we have identified five areas in which FDA is
improving product reviews to respond to more complex science and assure
that patient need for new therapies is being met. Each comes at a cost
in additional dollars/manpower:
--Sponsors Need More Meeting Time and Other Feedback from FDA
--Applications Require More Patients, Study Sites and Analysis
--Enhanced Timeliness and Consistency of Product Review
--Expansion of Pre-and Post-Market Safety
--Enhance Innovation, Speed Approvals
A 2011 study quantified some of the changes that require more FDA
resources:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change 00--11
All Therapeutic Areas, All Phases 00--03 08--11 %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unique medical and compliance procedures per protocol (median).. 20.5 30.4 48%
Total procedures per protocol (median).......................... 105.9 166.6 57%
Total investigative site work burden (median units)............. 28.9 47.5 64%
Total eligibility criteria...................................... 31 46 58%
Median study duration in days................................... 140 175 25%
Median number of CRF pages per protocol (CRF = case report 55 171 227%
forms).........................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Getz, Campo, Kaitin. Variability in Protocol Design Complexity by Phase and Therapeutic Area, DIJ 2011
45(4); 413-420; Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development
fda's vital, complex world-wide public health responsibilities cannot
be accomplished with its existing budget. the agency's mission is ``at
risk.''
FDA is a staff-intensive organization. More than 80 percent of its
budget is devoted to staff-related costs. If the agency budget fails to
grow over the next few years:
--food will be less safe and consumers put at risk,
--drug and device reviews will be slower, conflicting with promises
made to consumers, patients and companies,
--problems with imports and globalization will become more numerous,
and
--critical efforts to modernize the agency and improve its support
for innovation will stall.
FDA has a broad mandate for a relatively small agency. Its
activities are a core function of government and its mission and
responsibilities are increasing. FDA should be a priority and it
deserves exceptional status when appropriations decisions are made.
[This statement was submitted by Kasey Thompson, President,
Alliance for a Stronger FDA.]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Commodity Distribution Association
On behalf of the American Commodity Distribution Association
(ACDA), I respectfully submit this statement regarding the budget
request of the Food and Nutrition Service for inclusion in the
Subcommittee's official record. ACDA members appreciate the
Subcommittee's support for these vital programs.
We urge the subcommittee to fully fund administrative expense
funding for the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) at $100
million; to approve sufficient funding to maintain caseload in the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) and provide an increase of
$5 million to begin operations in six additional states approved by
USDA, and to actively monitor three matters: further changes in sodium
standards for school meal programs, recommendations of the Multiagency
Task Force on commodity procurement required by Section 4205 of the
Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-79), and the National
Commission on Hunger established by Section 743 of Division A of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-76).
ACDA is a non-profit professional trade association, dedicated to
the growth and improvement of USDA's Commodity Food Distribution
Program. ACDA members include: state agencies that distribute USDA-
purchased commodity foods; agricultural organizations; industry;
associate members; recipient agencies, such as schools and soup
kitchens; and allied organizations, such as anti-hunger groups. ACDA
members are responsible for distributing over 1.5 billion pounds of
USDA-purchased commodity foods annually through programs such as
National School Lunch Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program
(TEFAP), Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), Commodity Supplemental
Food Program (CSFP), Charitable Institution Program, and Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR).
itefap food dollars now available for two fiscal years
We previously called upon the subcommittee to make TEFAP food
dollars available for two fiscal years, as was done under ARRA. This
important change was included in the Agricultural Act of 2014, and we
are thankful for it. We also very much appreciate the increase in food
funds from $268,750,000 in fiscal year 2014 to $324,000,000 provided by
the same Act. They are most certainly needed.
If food orders are cancelled by either USDA or vendors for any
reason near the end of the Federal fiscal year, state agencies will now
have the ability to carryover these unanticipated balances to make
responsible decisions and to take maximum advantage of available
resources.
ACDA looks forward to working with USDA for the effective
implementation of this carryover authority.
fully fund tefap administrative funds at $100 million
We continue to urge the subcommittee to fully fund TEFAP
Administrative Funds at $100 million, and believe that the notable
increase in food funds will result in more food, more handling, and
more storage. As a result, operating expenses will most certainly
increase. In our view, so should the funding for these operating
expenses. .
Food banks continue to face increased demands, particularly with
the reduction in SNAP benefits imposed last November. Higher food
prices and tighter food supplies are a significant challenge, so we are
very supportive of the increased food support provided by the
Agricultural Act of 2014. Food banks for the past several years have
found that they have had little choice but to convert food dollars to
administrative expense funds in order to maintain their operations. We
urge the Committee to not force this choice upon food banks that are
experiencing reduced private donations in addition to increased
demands.
funding for the commodity supplemental food program
ACDA supports the President's request for $206,682,000 to maintain
the current caseload for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program
(CSFP), and urges the Committee provide an additional $5 million to
begin CSFP operations in six states that now have USDA-approved state
plans--Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts and Rhode
Island. This additional funding would make CSFP available in 45 states.
CSFP overwhelmingly serves elderly individuals, many of whom are
homebound, and is being converted to an elderly-only program as a
result of Section 4102 of the Agricultural Act of 2014.
monitoring further changes in sodium standards for school meals
As we stated in our 2014 Issue Paper, in 2012, Congress enacted a
provision of law requiring USDA to review and evaluate its rule
reducing the amount of sodium allowable in school meals for the rule's
costs, practicality and scientific support. ACDA supports that
provision, but is concerned that USDA will not issue its findings and
make any resulting changes in the sodium standards in a timely fashion.
The Department has indicated that it will report in 2016, which is 2
years after the information is needed in order for manufacturers and
others in the supply chain to develop, test and market new items before
the next step in the sodium standards goes into effect. School Food
Service authorities have made significant changes in the nutritional
quality of foods served as part of the school lunch and breakfast
program, and are embarking on additional changes in foods served as
part of a la carte meals and sold elsewhere throughout the school. ACDA
is committed to improving the quality of school meals, but believes
that there needs to be sufficient lead time before the required
implementation of any further changes in sodium standards. We urge the
Congress to require that any further changes in sodium standards be
based on sound science, and that sufficient lead time for the
development, testing, and production of new products be provided before
any further changes in sodium standards are required. We also urge the
Appropriations Committee to continue to monitor this important matter
should further action be needed.
interagency panel for evaluation and improvement of the usda foods
program
ACDA applauds the inclusion of Section 4205 of the Agricultural Act
of 2014, establishing a multiagency task force at USDA for continuous
evaluation and improvement of the USDA Foods program. We thank the Food
and Nutrition Service, the Agricultural Marketing Service, Farm
Services Agency, and the Food Safety and Inspection Service for the
efforts they have made to improve procurement operations over the past
few years following meeting with ACDA. We strongly support the USDA
Foods program and want to be sure it works effectively. We are prepared
to work with all of these USDA agencies and our members to develop any
information that USDA may require. We encourage the Committee to
monitor developments as this task force gets underway.
national commission on hunger
ACDA looks forward to the activities of the National Commission on
Hunger established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, and would be
pleased to provide information regarding the operation of commodity-
based food assistance programs. We know that most Commission members
are yet to be appointed and its agenda fully developed. ACDA hopes that
at least one Commission member will have experience with commodity
program operations because this experience can be invaluable to the
Commission's task. ACDA believes that commodities provided to school
food programs, to TEFAP, to CSFP, and to FDPIR are an important link
between producers and recipients. They are cost effective and often
exceed commercial standards, enabling USDA to be a market influencer.
We look forward to continuing to partner with you and USDA in the
delivery of these important food assistance programs.
[This statement was submitted by Wanda Shepherd, President,
American Commodity Distribution Association.]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation
The American Farm Bureau Federation has identified the Renewable
Energy for America Program (REAP) as its program for emphasis and
funding in the fiscal year 2015 agriculture appropriations bill. REAP
offers a combination of grants and guaranteed loans for agricultural
producers to purchase renewable energy systems.
Farm Bureau has identified eight other areas of importance for
funding. They are:
programs that promote animal health
Farm Bureau supports a $2 million increase to the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for voluntary Animal Disease
Traceability (ADT), offset by a $2 million decrease for Avian Influenza
(AI) related programs. The ADT program is essential for animal health,
while avian health has generally improved because of success in
decreasing the global occurrence of AI.
Farm Bureau supports additional funding through the Agricultural
Research Service and National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
for dealing with porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDv). PEDv is an
especially virulent disease for which there is currently no vaccine.
Farm Bureau supports $4.8 million for the Veterinary Medicine Loan
Repayment Program (VMLRP) administered by NIFA. VMLRP veterinarians
ensure animal health and welfare, while protecting the nation's food
supply.
Farm Bureau supports funding $10 million for the Veterinary
Services Grant (VSG) program, which was authorized in the Agricultural
Act of 2014. The VSG program helps food animal veterinarians become
established in rural communities.
Farm Bureau supports funding $15 million for the National Animal
Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN), which was authorized in the
Agriculture Act of 2014. The NAHLN serves as our nation's most vital
early warning system for emerging and foreign animal diseases.
Farm Bureau supports funding $10 million for Section 1433 in the
Agriculture Act of 2014, which establishes a new competitive research
grants mechanism to address critical priorities in food security,
zoonotic disease and stewardship.
Farm Bureau supports $144.5 million for the FDA's Center for
Veterinary Medicine (CVM). The CVM oversees the safety of animal drugs,
feeds and biotechnology-derived products.
programs that promote conservation
Farm Bureau supports funding for conservation programs but
prioritizes working lands programs over retirement-type programs.
Farmers and ranchers have made great strides in conserving our natural
resources and these gains can continue through working lands programs.
programs that expand international markets for agriculture
Farm Bureau supports funding at authorized levels for:
--The Foreign Agricultural Service to maintain services that expand
agricultural export markets.
--Export development and expansion programs such as the Market Access
Program, Foreign Market Development Program, Emerging Markets
Program and Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program.
These effective programs have resulted in increased demand for
U.S. agriculture and food products abroad.
--Public Law 480 programs which provide foreign food aid by
purchasing U.S. commodities.
--APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine personnel and facilities,
which protect U.S. agriculture from costly pest problems that
enter from foreign lands.
--APHIS trade issues resolution and management activities that are
essential for an effective response when other countries raise
pest and disease concerns (i.e., sanitary and phytosanitary
measures) to prohibit the entry of American products.
--APHIS Biotechnology Regulatory Services, which oversees the permit,
notification and deregulation process for plant biotechnology
products.
--The U.S. Codex Office, which is essential to improving the
harmonization of international science-based standards for the
safety of food and agriculture products.
programs that enhance and improve food safety and protection
Farm Bureau supports funding for food protection at the Food and
Drug Administration and Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) that is
directed to the following priorities: Increased education and training
of inspectors; Additional science-based inspection, targeted according
to risk; Effective inspection of imported food and feed products;
Research and development of scientifically based rapid testing
procedures and tools; Accurate and timely response to outbreaks that
identify contaminated products, remove them from the market and
minimize disruption to producers; and Indemnification for producers who
suffer marketing losses due to inaccurate government-advised recalls or
warnings.
Farm Bureau supports funding for a National Antimicrobial Residue
Monitoring System (NARMS) to detect trends in antibiotic resistance.
NARMS protects human and animal health through integrated monitoring of
antimicrobial resistance among foodborne bacteria.
Farm Bureau supports funding for the Food Animal Residue Avoidance
Databank (FARAD) at the authorized level of $2.5 million. FARAD aids
veterinarians in establishing science-based recommendations for drug
withdrawal intervals.
Farm Bureau opposes the administration's request for new user fees
for inspection activities. Food safety is for the public good, and as
such, it is a justified use of public funds.
Farm Bureau opposes any provision which would prohibit FSIS from
inspecting equine processing facilities under the Federal Meat
Inspection Act. Prohibiting the harvest of livestock for reasons
unrelated to food safety or animal welfare sets an extremely dangerous
precedent for banning meat inspection from every species, including
beef, pork, lamb and poultry.
programs that ensure crop protection tools
Farm Bureau supports maintaining the current funding level for the
Minor Crop Pest Management (IR-4) within NIFA Research and Education
Activities. Developing pest control tools has high regulatory costs,
and public support has been needed to ensure that safe and effective
agrichemicals and biopesticides are available for small, specialty crop
markets.
Farm Bureau supports maintaining funding for the National
Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) in general and specifically
points out the agricultural chemical-use surveys for fruits,
vegetables, floriculture and nursery crops. NASS surveys provide data
about the use of agricultural chemicals involved in the production of
food, fiber and horticultural products, just as their overall effort is
critical to understanding the performance of the sector as a whole.
programs that strengthen rural communities
Farm Bureau supports USDA implementing a regional approach to give
its Rural Development (RD) programs greater flexibility and promote
innovation in rural regions.
--Farm Bureau supports maintaining funding at authorized levels for:
--The Value-Added Agricultural Producer Grants, Rural Innovation
Initiative, Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program, and
Business and Industry Direct and Guaranteed Loans, which foster
business development in rural communities.
--Rural Utilities Service for rural broadband and telecommunications
services, and the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program.
--The Revolving Fund Grant Program for acquiring safe drinking water
and sanitary waste disposal facilities.
--The Community Facility Direct and Guaranteed Loans, which funds the
construction, enlargement or improvement of essential community
facilities.
--The Resource Conservation and Development Program, which helps
local volunteers create new businesses, form cooperatives and
develop agri-tourism activities.
--The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, which
provides participants with the information and skills needed to
make informed decisions for their business.
--Agriculture in the Classroom, which helps students gain greater
awareness of the role of agriculture in the economy and
society.
programs that support wildlife services
Farm Bureau supports maintaining the funding level for APHIS
Wildlife Services programs. Wildlife Services works to prevent and
minimize an estimated $1 billion worth of wildlife damage, while
protecting human health and safety from conflicts with wildlife.
research priorities
Agricultural research is vital, particularly research focused on
meeting the growing challenges of production agriculture. The United
Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization predicts that farmers will
have to produce 70 percent more food by 2050 to feed an additional 2.3
billion people around the globe. America's farmers are the most
efficient in the world, but without a commitment to further
agricultural research and technological advancement, even America's
farmers could be hard-pressed to meet these challenges.
[This statement was submitted by Bob Stallman, President, American
Farm Bureau Federation.]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Honey Producers Association and
American Beekeeping Federation
Chairman Pryor and Members of the Subcommittee, our names are Randy
Verhoek, President of the American Honey Producers Association (AHPA)
and Tim Tucker, President of the American Beekeeping Federation (ABF).
We are pleased today to submit the following statement for the record
on behalf of our two organizations. Collectively, AHPA and ABF
represent every type of beekeeper across the country, from hobbyists on
up to the very largest commercial honey producers and pollinators. The
purpose of this statement is to bring to your attention the continued
threats faced by American beekeepers and the risk those threats pose to
billions of dollars in U.S. agriculture that rely upon honey bee
pollination services. To address these threats, AHPA and ABF strongly
support the President's fiscal year '15 budget proposal and
respectfully request that the attached funding increases ($25 million
for a NIFA Pollination and Pollinator Health (PPH) Institute; a $4
million increase for ARS honey bee research within crop production
funds; and $2 million increase for NASS honey bee surveys and studies)
and report language are included in the fiscal year '15 annual
appropriations bill.
A 2013 Time Magazine cover story and thousands of other magazines,
newspapers, media outlets and government reports have documented the
scourge of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) and other serious declines in
honey bee health since 2006. Unfortunately, those health challenges
continue to result in drastic bee colony losses year over year. Still
lacking a definitive understanding of the causes after more than 8
years since the onset of CCD, the scientific, agricultural and consumer
communities have grown increasingly concerned that more than $20
billion of pollinator-dependent U.S. agricultural output and a full
one-third of our nation's food supply is at serious risk. Just last
year the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) estimated more
than 35 percent of America's bee colonies did not survive the winter
season, and even greater losses were realized by most commercial
beekeepers, on average 45 percent. While science has yet to determine a
definitive cause, the challenges to honey bee health are clearly multi-
faceted, requiring resource intensive and high priority study. USDA has
done great work in recent years within its resource constraints, but
its research and other programmatic initiatives are woefully
underfunded and in need of exponentially increased investments that are
commensurate with the seriousness of the challenges they face.
As a result, AHPA and ABF strongly support the President's fiscal
year '15 budget proposal and respectfully request that the attached
funding increases and report language are included in the fiscal year
'15 annual appropriations bill. Doing so will ensure that USDA can,
among other things, sufficiently enhance its Federal laboratory and
competitive grant research agenda, strengthen pollinator habitat across
the country, double the number of acres in the Conservation Reserve
Program that are dedicated to pollinator health, and increase funding
for surveys to determine the impacts on pollinator losses, all of which
are necessary next steps in the battle to ensure commercially viable
honey bee populations throughout the United States.
As always, we thank you for your past support of essential honey
bee research and for your understanding of the critical importance that
Federal funding plays in ensuring a healthy honey bee supply ready to
meet the nation's pollination demands.
agricultural research service (ars)
--Funding increase for ARS honeybee research:
--Request of $4 million increase in crop production funding for
additional Federal laboratory research into honey bee
health and Colony Collapse Disorder, including research
into bee health improvement and risk assessment of
pesticides, bee epidemiology, best management practices and
genetics relating to diseases and pests of pollinators.
This high priority increase should be offset by redirecting
funds from ongoing, lower priority research as detailed in
the Administration's fiscal year '15 budget documents.
--ARS Report language:
--``The Committee is aware that pollinators are responsible for the
production of one-third of the Nation's food supply, but
the number of managed honeybee colonies in the United
States has dropped in half since 1940. Because of the
importance of pollinators in the production of the Nation's
food supply and their impact on the stability of our
agricultural economy, the Committee encourages ARS to
increase resources dedicated to protecting the health of
both honeybees and other native bees, including continued
research into colony collapse disorder.''
--ARS Report language:
--``ARS is encouraged to study the feasibility of conducting
Federal honey bee research in California with the support
of a cooperator university that is well situated to conduct
field and other research vital to honey bees and the many
specialty crops that rely on them. ARS is also encouraged
to report on the feasibility of modernizing the honey bee
research laboratory in Baton Rouge, which was included in
the agency's 2012 capital investment strategy report.
Finally, ARS is encouraged to consider investing additional
research dollars with Federal laboratories in the upper
Great Plains where the largest number of honey bee colonies
are available for research during the honey production
season.''
national institutes of food and agriculture (nifa)
--Funding for Pollination and Pollinator Health Institute:
--Request $25 million in funding, available until expended, for a
virtual Pollination and Pollinator Health (PPH) Institute
that will foster industry and researcher collaboration and
utilize input from stakeholders to develop priorities for
addressing biological, environmental and management issues
associated with the wide-scale decline of honey bees and
other pollinators nationwide. No fewer than $5 million of
these funds should be designated for pollinator health and
Colony Collapse Disorder research.
--Report Language:
--``The Committee acknowledges NIFA's continued commitment to
pollinator research under the Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative, and it encourages increased prioritization of
pollinator and CCD research proposals.''
--Report language:
--``The Committee emphasizes the important role of the Specialty
Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) in addressing the critical
needs of the specialty crop industry through research and
extension activities, and it encourages NIFA to prioritize
proposals for and enhance its overall commitment to
identifying and addressing threats to pollinators from
pests and diseases.''
national agricultural statistics service (nass)
--Funding increase for enhanced NASS surveys:
--Request of $2 million in increased funding to enhance its annual
survey of bee keepers to include questions related to
colony losses, pests and parasites, management practices,
crops pollinated and locations served, as well as estimates
of revenues and expenses, which will result in improved
baseline and annual data to determine the extent of CCD, in
addition to providing quantitative information on potential
causal factors, essential to the industry. This increase
should be offset by reductions consistent with those
identified in the Administration's fiscal year '15 budget
documents.
nrcs
--Report language:
--``NRCS, under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP), provided $3 million in technical and financial
assistance for farmers and ranchers to help improve honey
bee health through better conservation practices that will
provide honey bees with nutritious pollen and nectar.
Because access to good forage is an ongoing challenge for
commercial beekeepers, the Committee supports continuing
and expanding this technical and financial assistance
program, and recommends that a significant portion of the
funds should be devoted to facilitating training by expert
researchers and beekeepers of NRCS officials and agents in
pollinator conservation practices.''
[This statement was submitted by Mr. Randy Verhoek, President,
American Honey Producers Association and Mr. Tim Tucker, President,
American Beekeeping Federation]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy
The American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of
America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) urge the
subcommittee to support the following areas of the Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission
areas in fiscal year 2015 budget:
$1.149 billion for the Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
$1.341 billion for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA)
Within NIFA, we specifically support:
$360 million for Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI).
$244 million for Hatch Act formula funding
The American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of
America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA), represent
over 18,000 members in academia, industry, and government, 12,500
Certified Crop Advisers (CCA), and 781 Certified Professional Soil
Scientist (CPSS), as the largest coalition of professionals dedicated
to the agronomic, crop and soil science disciplines in the United
States. We are dedicated to utilizing science to manage our
agricultural system and sustainably produce food, fuel, feed, and fiber
for a rapidly growing global population in the coming decades.
Agriculture and agriculture-related industries contributed $742.6
billion to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2011, a 4.8-percent
share. In 2012, 16.5 million full-and part-time jobs were related to
agriculture--about 9.2 percent of total U.S. employment. However, even
though increased agricultural productivity, arising from innovation and
changes in technology, is the main contributor to economic growth in
U.S. agriculture not all people at all times have to access to enough
food for an active and healthy life. The global number of food-insecure
people is estimated at 707 million in 2013, up 3 million from 2012. By
2023, the number of food-insecure people is projected to increase
nearly 23 percent to 868 million, slightly faster than population
growth. The Nation's economic prosperity and security depend on our
dedication to developing innovative, science-based solutions to meet
our growing agricultural needs and managing efficient food systems.
We must close the innovation deficit if the United States is to
remain the world's innovation leader in agriculture. China continues to
exhibit the world's most dramatic R&D growth at 20.7 percent annually,
compared to the United States at 4.4 percent growth over the same time
period. By 2009, agriculture R&D fell to a historically low 0.035
percent share of the United States economy, a level far below the total
U.S. R&D spending and that which is necessary to meet the critical
challenges facing U.S. agriculture in the 21st century.
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA supports $1.149 billion for Agricultural
Research Service (ARS), USDA's intramural research and development
programs, and applaud their ability to respond to and address
agricultural problems of high national priority. ARS's 2,200 scientists
are located at 90+ research locations, managing 800 research projects
that help solve current and future crop and livestock production and
protection, human nutrition, and environmental quality challenges. ARS
programs and technologies ensure high-quality, safe food and other
agricultural products; assess the nutritional needs of Americans; help
to sustain a competitive agricultural economy; enhance the natural
resource base and the environment; and, provide economic opportunities
for rural citizens and communities. ARS also forms key partnerships
that move new technologies to the marketplace.
These partnerships are especially important to leverage during a
time when our nation's economy remains vulnerable and Federal funding
is constrained. Such cooperative research and development helps foster
American businesses and enhances the position of the U.S. as a global
leader in food, feed, fiber, and fuel production.
We support $1.341 billion for the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA), USDA's suite of extramural programs whose primary
role is to provide a link between Federal and state research
initiatives through partnerships with educational institutions and
competitive grant programs. Within NIFA, we specifically support:
--Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI): ASA, CSSA, and
SSSA strongly endorse funding AFRI at $360 million, which is
about half of what was originally authorized in the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. AFRI is the premier
competitive grants program for fundamental and applied
research, extension and education in support of our nation's
food and agricultural systems. Investments in AFRI bolster work
performed by ARS, America's land grant colleges and
universities, the private sector and the American farmer.
--Hatch Act Formula Funding: ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support $244 for
Hatch Act formula funds. These funds provide research grants to
our nation's great land-grant colleges and universities. Any
additional cuts to academic funding will reduce the ability of
our scientists and students to conduct imperative research such
as developing drought resistant wheat varieties.
A balance of funding mechanisms, including intramural, competitive,
and formula funding is essential to maintain the capacity of the United
States to conduct both basic and applied agricultural research, to
improve crop and livestock quality, and to deliver safe and nutritious
food products while protecting and enhancing the nation's environment
and natural resource base.
Thank you for your consideration. For additional information or to
learn more about the ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, please visit
www.agronomy.org, www.crops.org, or www.soils.org.
[This statement was submitted by the Karl E. Anderson, Director of
Government Relations, American Society of Agronomy]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single
life science Society with over 39,000 members, wishes to submit a
statement in support of increased funding in fiscal year 2015 for the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA plays a unique and
essential role in protecting public health by assuring the safety and
efficacy of products accounting for more than 20 percent of all
consumer spending in the United States. FDA science based regulatory
oversight covers the Nation's food supply, human and veterinary drugs,
vaccines and other biological products, medical devices and more.
Market globalization and advances in science and technology have
significantly increased FDA's responsibilities in recent years. FDA's
current strategic priorities include modernizing regulatory science
capabilities and building an integrated global food safety system.
The ASM urges Congress to provide additional funding for the FDA in
fiscal year 2015 because of the magnitude of its new responsibilities
and the need for capacity in critical areas such as food safety.
FDA actions, based on scientific best practices, include consumer
alerts and warnings; production guidances and tools for food safety;
approval of new devices, diagnostics, treatments and vaccines;
strategies to reduce drug resistant microbial pathogens; and safer
veterinary medicines and animal foods. Recent FDA investigations of
foodborne disease outbreaks, using laboratory tests to confirm, linked
illnesses to rice, cheeses and prepackaged salad products. In the past
year, FDA consumer alerts warned against oysters linked to norovirus
illness, nonsterile pharmacological solutions, and carrot and beet
juices possibly contaminated with Clostridium botulinum bacteria.
fda science
FDA has a strategic plan to strengthen regulatory science
including, developing new tools, standards and methods to assess the
safety, efficacy, quality and performance of FDA regulated products.
FDA staff must access the best possible science and technology, as
products move from premarket review to post market surveillance.
Science underlies all the activities of FDA's seven product and
research centers, as well as product regulatory actions. Public health
often depends upon quick and accurate laboratory analyses. The Office
of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) operates 13 high throughput field
laboratories, situated across the United States and Puerto Rico. Lab
results can support field investigations and regulatory decisions,
including the thousands of ORA noncompliance citations issued each year
to firms producing foods, medical devices, drugs, veterinary medicines,
biologics, etc. Other FDA laboratories operated by the Agency's Foods
and Veterinary Medicine Program support the broad responsibilities of
the Centers for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and
Veterinary Medicine (CVM).
The ASM recommends that Congress fund the FDA at the highest level
possible in fiscal year 2015.
FDA scientists conduct research that advances the field of
regulatory science, while protecting public health, including the
following accomplishments in fiscal year 2013:
--An FDA primate study found that FDA licensed acellular pertussis
vaccines are effective in preventing whooping cough, but those
vaccinated may still become infected with the causative
pathogen, Bordetella pertussis bacteria and spread infection to
others. Acellular vaccines using only portions of the bacteria
replaced whole cell pertussis vaccines the 1990s. The study was
initiated to help explain increasing whooping cough rates since
the 1980s.
--A new FDA developed tool will improve security against intentional
food contamination. The software program helps owners and
operators of food facilities customize food defense plans to
minimize risk in their specific facility. Content of the Food
Defense Plan Builder tool is based on FDA guidance documents.
--A handheld FDA developed device to identify counterfeit
antimalarial drugs, the Counterfeit Detection Device (CD-3), is
being field tested in Ghana under a multiagency partnership.
Counterfeit treatments complicate the already difficult global
battle against a killer of more than 660,000 each year and
whose causative pathogens are increasingly resistant to drugs.
Scientists at the FDA's Forensic Chemistry Center developed the
easy to operate tool, which uses light of varying wavelengths
to compare a product with an authentic sample.
food safety
Food items account for about 75 percent of consumer spending on FDA
regulated products. The food industry in the United States contributes
about 20 percent of the Gross National Product, employs about 14
million individuals and has ties to an additional 4 million jobs in
related industries. FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
(CFSAN) generally oversees all domestic and imported food except meat,
poultry and frozen, dried and liquid eggs, which are regulated by the
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
CFSAN regulates an estimated $417 billion worth of domestic food,
$49 billion worth of imported foods and over $60 billion worth of
cosmetics. Several industry and consumer trends have greatly increased
CFSAN responsibilities, including globalization of the food supply and
demand for imported foods, greater numbers of aging people vulnerable
to foodborne illness, new food types and food production methods,
emerging foodborne pathogens and growing concern over intentional food
contamination.
CFSAN responsibility stretches from the point of US entry or
processing to their point of sale. There are more than 377,000 FDA
registered food facilities (approximately 154,000 domestic and 223,000
foreign) that manufacture, process, pack or store food consumed by
humans or animals in the United States, as well as several thousand
cosmetic manufacturers. Possibilities for food contamination are
immeasurable and include every step from preharvest conditions to
processing, packaging, transportation and preparation. CFSAN personnel
routinely examine large numbers of food samples for a long list of
specific contaminants that include toxins and microbial pathogens.
Imported foods give regulators fewer opportunities to oversee the
food supply chain from farm to table. Food enters ports from about 150
different countries and accounts for about 15 percent of the food
supply, including about 50 percent of fresh fruits and 20 percent of
fresh vegetables we consume. In mid-2013, FDA proposed new rules that,
for the first time, would (1) hold importers accountable for verifying
their foreign suppliers implement adequate food safety practices and
(2) raise the standards for third party auditors who inspect as
contractors for food companies and importers. In December, the agency
proposed a rule requiring larger food facilities, in the United States
and abroad, to have a written food defense plan that identifies and
resolves processing steps most vulnerable to intentional contamination.
To protect the food supply, FDA inspects facilities and collects
samples, monitors imports, responds to adverse event reports and
consumer complaints, reviews new food additives, releases regulations
and guidelines to stakeholders, conducts lab research, educates food
producers and the public and if necessary enforces rules and
regulations by recalling or seizing faulty products. These activities
demand up to date knowledge and technology utilized by CFSAN's many
scientific specialists, including microbiologists, molecular
biologists, chemists, toxicologists, food technologists, pathologists,
pharmacologists, nutritionists, epidemiologists, mathematicians,
physicians and veterinarians.
FDA regularly builds strategic partnerships with other public
health institutions. Many of its responsibilities are shared with other
Federal agencies like USDA and CDC. Because large amounts of food and
cosmetics are imported, CFSAN works with international groups like the
World Health Organization and sometimes directly with foreign
governments. Products made and sold entirely within a state are
regulated by that state, but FDA coordinates with state agriculture and
health departments to resolve problems. CFSAN also collaborates with
several academic institutions through its Centers of Excellence
program, funding food safety and nutrition research at universities in
four states.
advances in biomedicine
FDA scientists regularly evaluate biomedical products with
considerable public health and economic value, divided among various
research centers focused on drugs, medical devices or biologics like
vaccines. Examples from the past year show the diversity and medical
significance of FDA's involvement in the biomedicine enterprise:
--A newly implemented FDA plan would phase out the use of medically
important antimicrobials in food animals for food production
purposes to address the public health crisis of rising drug
resistance among microorganisms causing human infectious
diseases.
--An approved rapid diagnostic is the first test that simultaneously
detects tuberculosis bacteria and determines whether they
contain genetic markers for resistance to rifampin, an
important TB antibiotic. Test results are ready in about two
hours versus traditional lab culture methods requiring one to 3
months.
--FDA allowed marketing of the first mass spectrometer system to
automatically identify bacteria and yeasts pathogenic to
humans. It can identify 193 different microorganisms and
perform up to 192 different tests in a single series. Unlike
many test systems that require abundant microbial growth
pretesting, the new system uses a small amount of material with
more rapid results.
--A new drug approved for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection
is the first effective in treating certain types of HCV without
co-administration of interferon. It is the third drug
designated a ``breakthrough therapy'' to receive FDA approval.
Breakthrough therapies are those shown by early clinical
testing to have substantial advantage over available therapies
for serious diseases. An estimated 3.2 million or more people
are thought to be HCV infected.
--The first genotyping test for HCV infected patients identifies the
genotype of HCV infecting a patient. It will help select the
best treatment; HCV genotypes respond differently to available
drugs. It is approved for patients with chronic infections, not
as a screening or diagnostic test.
--FDA approved the first adjuvanted vaccine for H5N1 influenza (bird
flu). Not intended for commercial availability, the vaccine
will be included in the National Stockpile for distribution if
H5N1 develops the capability to spread easily from human to
human.
--A newly approved drug to treat HIV-1 infection contains an
inhibitor that interferes with one of the enzymes necessary for
HIV to multiply. FDA also approved the first rapid HIV test for
simultaneous detection of HIV-1 p24 antigen and antibodies to
both HIV-1 and HIV-2 in patient blood. Detection of the antigen
permits earlier detection than possible with antibodies alone.
--Patients exposed to toxin secreted by botulism causing bacteria can
now receive the first antitoxin that neutralizes all of the
seven toxin serotypes known to cause botulism.
FDA regulatory actions in biomedicine serve the FDA's partnership
in several initiatives, including strategies to halt rising drug
resistance among microbial pathogens, remedy the growing shortage of
new therapeutic drugs or stimulate innovation in personalized medicine.
FDA funding not only subsidizes its own invaluable work, but it also
supports the FDA's collaborations with other public health agencies at
the Federal, state and local levels.
[This statement was submitted by the Public and Scientific Affairs
Board, American Society for Microbiology.]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single
life science society with over 39,000 members, wishes to submit the
following statement in support of increased funding in fiscal year 2015
for research and education programs at the US Department of Agriculture
(USDA). Funding for USDA research invests in sectors important to
public health and the economy, including food safety and food security,
production sustainability, bioenergy sources, plant and animal health
and the environment. The ASM recommends funding USDA agriculture and
science programs to the highest level possible in fiscal year 2015.
Agriculture is important to health and the environment and yields
broad economic benefits. The range of industries related to agriculture
combines for nearly 5 percent of the national gross domestic product
(GDP). In 2012, over 16 million jobs were related to agriculture, over
9 percent of total employment (2.6 million were direct on the farm
employment). In recent years, farm asset values have surged upward,
while agriculture exports have reached historical highs. At a time when
US global competitiveness is being challenged, agriculture exports
embody productivity and innovation in the United States. In fiscal year
2013, exports reached over $140 billion, exceeding the previous record
of $137 billion in fiscal year 2011. The average volume of exports has
increased by nearly four million tons annually over the past 5 years.
Farm exports also support about one million jobs in the country.
USDA productivity statistics show that total farm production more
than doubled between 1948 and 2011, with total output growing at an
average annual rate of 1.49 percent. Almost all growth was due to
increased productivity, much of it fueled by research. Although USDA
research receives considerably less than 5 percent of the USDA budget,
USDA's research support has consistently generated high returns.
usda research
USDA research interconnects issues of global food supply and
security, climate and energy needs, sustainable use of natural
resources, nutrition and childhood obesity, food safety and consumer
education. USDA's Research, Education and Economics Action Plan (REE)
focuses on a number of efforts using the microbiological sciences to
mitigate animal and plant diseases, to reduce foodborne illnesses, to
identify bioenergy sources and to protect the environment. Projects
involve both national and international collaborations and research
results are regularly shared with producers, regulatory agencies,
consumers, industry and commodity organizations.
USDA support for research has significant economic consequences. In
2013, the World Organization for Animal Health upgraded the United
States' risk classification for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)
to negligible risk, expanding market potential (exports of US origin
beef and beef products exceed $5 billion). In December, USDA launched
its new, unified emergency response framework to address citrus
greening disease, also known as Huanglongbing (HLB), a serious threat
to the $3 billion plus citrus industry. This will coordinate HLB
resources, share information and develop operational strategies on a
national scale with multiple stakeholders. USDA science underlies
numerous policy and regulatory actions like food recalls or guidelines
to food processors, exerting significant economic and societal
influence within and beyond the agriculture sector.
USDA supports innovation through its intramural research,
extramural university research grants, financial awards to small
businesses and partnerships with government, academia and industry. The
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) serves as the in house research
agency, with more than 2,200 scientists and a portfolio of about 800
research projects divided among 18 programs. Extramural research is
supported by NIFA, while the Economic Research Service and National
Agricultural Statistics Service contribute interdisciplinary analyses
that guide USDA involvement in agriculture.
When Congress created NIFA in 2008, it emphasized the national
importance of food and agriculture sciences. NIFA supports research,
education and extension programs in the land grant university system,
primarily through competitive grants distributed by NIFA's Agriculture
and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). The ASM urges Congress to fund
AFRI with at least $360 million in fiscal year 2015 as part of a
sustained commitment to agriculture research.
NIFA also administers USDA's Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR) program, which since 1983 has awarded more than 2,000 grants to
US owned small businesses. AFRI supports six priority areas: 1) plant
health and production; 2) animal health and production; 3) food safety,
nutrition and health; 4) renewable energy, natural resources and
environment; 5) agriculture systems and technology and 6) agriculture
economics and rural communities.
food safety and food security
USDA contributes to safeguarding the Nation's food supply and
ensuring food security through adequate wholesome foods. Both ARS and
NIFA programs fund research to reduce the approximately 48 million
foodborne illnesses annually, which cost the economy billions of
dollars each year. Working from field offices, the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) regulates the supply of meat, poultry and egg
products, and is responsible for recalling contaminated foods. The
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) protects the health
of animals and plants that are important to the food supply, public
health and economy. Much of this collective effort targets pathogenic
microorganisms transmitted through food, by identifying microbial
threats, studying basic biology of foodborne pathogens, developing
technologies for contaminant detection and devising intervention and
prevention strategies along the farm to table continuum.
In 2013, USDA researchers reported on food safety studies that
included mapping microbes in cattle feedlot soil, a joint risk
assessment conducted with the Food and Drug Administration to evaluate
listeriosis in retail delis, and an FSIS developed Salmonella Action
Plan that outlines the steps needed against Salmonella bacteria in meat
and poultry products, the most pressing problem FSIS faces. Every year,
there are an estimated 1.3 million illnesses that can be attributed to
Salmonella. In large part through USDA efforts, there has been
progress: Salmonella rates in young chickens have dropped over 75
percent since 2006. The listeriosis study, which is the first of its
kind, concluded that multiple interventions are required to prevent the
often fatal infection by Listeria bacteria and thus reduce the 1,600
illnesses that occur annually.
animal and plant health
Last year, APHIS transferred one million doses of Classical Swine
Fever (CSF) vaccine to Guatemala's Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Safety. ARS scientists also genetically altered the CSF virus toward
developing better vaccines and invented a polymerase chain reaction
(PCR) assay to detect the virus. Although the United States has been
CSF free for over 30 years, these actions recognized the globalization
of agriculture products, as well as the crucial role played by science
and technology in protecting the public. USDA funded research on animal
and plant diseases reported in 2013 includes:
--ARS scientists studying foot and mouth disease (FMD) identified a
DNA sequence in FMD virus that, when removed, permits pathogens
to still multiply in cell culture but the viruses are no longer
virulent, suggesting a new approach to vaccine development.
Researchers also created a new animal cell line used to rapidly
detect FMD virus in field samples, the first capable of
identifying all seven FMD serotypes. They incorporated FMD
receptor genes cloned from cattle tissue into an established
cell line.
--Using a protein interaction reporter (PIR) technology developed by
USDA, for the first time researchers have mapped protein
structures known as virions that help plant viruses move from
plants to insects, through the insects and back into plants.
The new technology could lead to methods disrupting plant
disease transmission by insects.
--More specific testing for Johne's disease in cattle will be
possible with the first discovery of an antibody that binds
only to the causative agent, Mycobacterium avium subspecies
paratuberculosis (MAP). The USDA patented antibody will improve
diagnostic testing for a disease that costs the US dairy
industry more than $220 million each year.
--Plant geneticists developed new disease resistant pea plants to
protect against common root rot of legumes, a fungal disease
caused by Aphanomyces euteiches that can lead to crop losses of
20--100 percent. Others bred a wheat cultivar with innate
resistance to multiple fungal diseases. Of particular concern
is stripe rust (fungus Puccinia striiformis) which has caused
crop losses of up to 40 percent in the Pacific Northwest.
--Adding nickel and phosphite to an existing fungicide spray regimen
improves control of the fungus (Fusicladium effusum) causing
pecan scab, the most destructive disease of pecan in the
southeastern United States. The new information is timely as
the scab fungus is developing resistance to some currently used
fungicides.
--Exposing citrus seedlings to a minimum of 48 hours of temperatures
of 104 to 107 degrees Fahrenheit significantly reduces and
often eliminates HLB infection, according to USDA field trials.
The finding suggests practical measures to slow spread of
citrus greening disease.
biocontrol and bioenergy
In recent years, USDA has intensified its research on renewable
energy, natural resources and environmental issues. Microorganisms have
been particularly useful in studies of bioenergy and biocontrol,
including the following examples:
--The fungus Myrothecium verrucaria, which naturally attacks the weed
Palmer amaranth, is being studied as a possible biocontrol
agent against the weed, which can grow two inches a day and
crowd out commercial crops. The southern weed is acquiring
resistance to glyphosate herbicides, and the ARS reported
research is the first showing the fungus' bioherbicidal action
against a weed species with glyphosate resistance.
--ARS field trials are assessing effectiveness of spraying avocado
trees with foam that contains insect killing fungi against
ambrosia beetles, wood boring pests that threaten the nation's
$322 million avocado crop. Earlier lab studies used bioassays
to genetically confirm the ability of the fungi to infect and
kill the beetles. In those tests, more than 95 percent of
beetles exposed to the fungi died.
--Pathogen carrying house flies are being deliberately infected in
lab studies with salivary gland hypertrophy virus (SGHV),
member of a newly discovered family of viruses called
Hytrosaviridae, which stops flies from reproducing.
Bioenergy strategies commonly rely upon fuels converted from widely
available biomass like grasses, cereal grains or tree cellulose.
Agriculture clearly plays an important role in renewable energy and
USDA's biofuels portfolio includes both intramural and extramural
projects. In November, for example, USDA awarded nearly $10 million to
a consortium of academic, industry and government organizations across
several western states, to evaluate insect killed trees in the Rocky
Mountains as a bioenergy feedstock. Since 1996, pine and spruce bark
beetles have devastated over 42 million acres of western U.S. forests.
The consortium will explore use of scalable, on site thermochemical
conversion technologies to better access the beetle killed trees. At
ARS, molecular biologists recently created a new strain of yeast that
can break down and ferment sugars in corn cobs after xylose has been
extracted for other commercial uses, previously impossible with yeasts
inhibited by processes required. Since 2006, NIFA has collaborated with
the Department of Energy in a joint grant program to improve biomass
for biofuels, intent on increasing plant yield, quality and
adaptability to harsher environments.
The ASM encourages Congress to increase the fiscal year 2015 budget
to the highest amount possible in support of USDA's science, research
and food safety programs. USDA funded research is critical to the
health of our nation's food and agriculture industries as well as the
global economy. USDA science protects human and animal health, prevents
crop losses from disease and climate changes, seeks best practices to
preserve the environment, encourages innovation in valuable agriculture
based products and supports new generations of agriculture scientists
and educators.
[This statement was submitted by the Public and Scientific Affairs
Board, American Society for Microbiology.]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Nutrition
The American Society for Nutrition (ASN) respectfully requests that
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)/National Institute of Food
and Agriculture/Agriculture and Food Research Initiative receive no
less than $360 million and that the Agricultural Research Service
receive $1.2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2015. ASN has more than 5,000
members working throughout academia, clinical practice, government, and
industry, who conduct research to advance our knowledge and application
of nutrition.
agriculture and food research initiative
The USDA has been the lead nutrition agency and the most important
Federal agency influencing U.S. dietary intake and food patterns for
years. Agricultural research is essential to address the ever-
increasing demand for a healthy, affordable, nutritious and sustainable
food supply. The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)
competitive grants program is charged with funding research, education,
and extension and integrated, competitive grants that address key
problems of national, regional, and multi-state importance in
sustaining all components of agriculture. These components include
human nutrition, farm efficiency and profitability, ranching, renewable
energy, forestry (both urban and agro forestry), aquaculture, food
safety, biotechnology, and conventional breeding. AFRI has funded
cutting-edge, agricultural research on key issues of timely importance
on a competitive, peer-reviewed basis since its establishment in the
2008 Farm Bill. Adequate funding for agricultural research is critical
to provide a safe and nutritious food supply for the world population,
to preserve the competitive position of U.S. agriculture in the global
marketplace, and to provide jobs and revenue crucial to support the
U.S. economy.
In order to achieve those benefits, AFRI must be able to advance
fundamental sciences in support of agriculture and coordinate
opportunities to build off of these discoveries.
Therefore, ASN requests that the AFRI competitive grants program
receive at least $360 million in fiscal year 2015. ASN also strongly
supports funding AFRI at the fully authorized level of $700 million as
soon as practical. Current flat and decreased funding for AFRI hinders
scientific advances that support agricultural funding and research.
agricultural research service
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the Department of
Agriculture's lead scientific research agency. The ARS conducts
research to develop and transfer solutions to agricultural problems of
high national priority. USDA's program of human nutrition research is
housed in six Human Nutrition Research Centers (HNRCs) across the
nation, that link producer and consumer interests and form the core for
building knowledge about food and nutrition. HNRCs conduct unparalleled
human nutrition research on the role of food and dietary components in
human health from conception to advanced old age, and they provide
authoritative, peer-reviewed, science-based evidence that forms the
basis of our Federal nutrition policy and programs. Funding for ARS
supports all of the USDA/HNRCs and ensures that these research
facilities have adequate funding to continue their unique mission of
improving the health of Americans through cutting-edge food, nutrition
and agricultural research.
Nutrition monitoring conducted in partnership by the USDA/ARS with
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is a unique and
critically important surveillance function in which dietary intake,
nutritional status, and health status are evaluated in a rigorous and
standardized manner. (ARS is responsible for food and nutrient
databases and the ``What We Eat in America'' dietary survey, while HHS
is responsible for tracking nutritional status and health parameters.)
Nutrition monitoring is an inherently governmental function and
findings are essential for multiple government agencies, as well as the
public and private sector. Nutrition monitoring is essential to track
what Americans are eating, inform nutrition and dietary guidance
policy, evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of nutrition
assistance programs, and study nutrition-related disease outcomes.
Because of past funding deficiencies, some food composition database
entries do not reflect the realities of the current food supply, which
may negatively impact programs and policies based on this information.
It is imperative that needed funds to update USDA's food and nutrient
databases and the ``What We Eat in America'' dietary survey, both
maintained by the USDA/ARS, are appropriated to ensure the continuation
of this critical surveillance of the nation's nutritional status and
the many benefits it provides.
It is the job of ARS to ensure high-quality, safe food, and other
agricultural products; assess the nutritional needs of Americans;
sustain a competitive agricultural economy;enhance the natural resource
base and the environment; and provide economic opportunities for rural
citizens, communities, and society as a whole. Therefore, ASN requests
that ARS receive at least $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2015. At least
ten million dollars above current funding levels is necessary to ensure
the critical surveillance of the nation's nutritional status and to
continue the many other benefits that ARS provides. With such funding,
the ARS will be able to support its vision of leading America towards a
better future through agricultural research and information.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal
year 2015 appropriations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture/
National Institute of Food and Agriculture/AFRI competitive grants
program and Agricultural Research Service. ASN also supports the Farm
Bill provision that authorizes $200 million in mandatory funding for
the new Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research, which will
stimulate private investment in agricultural research on food safety
and nutrition, plant and animal health, renewable energy, natural
resources and environment, agricultural and food security, technology,
agricultural economics and rural communities.
[This statement was submitted by the Gordon L. Jensen, M.D., Ph.D.
President, American Society for Nutrition]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB)
On behalf of the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB), we
submit this statement for the official record in support of funding for
agricultural research by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
ASPB supports the funding levels of $383 million for USDA's Agriculture
and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) and $1.28 billion for the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS).
This testimony highlights the critical importance of plant biology
research and development to addressing vital issues including:
achieving a sustainable food supply and food security; energy security,
including attaining reduced reliance on all petrochemical products
through game-changing sustainable renewable biomass utilization
approaches; and in protecting our environment.
food, fuel, environment, and health: plant biology research and
america's competitiveness and self-sufficiency
We often take plants for granted, but they are vital to our very
existence, competitiveness, and self-sufficiency. New plant biology
research is now addressing the most compelling issues facing our
society, including: identifying creative and imaginative approaches to
reaching Congress's goals of achieving domestic fuel security/self-
sufficiency; environmental stewardship; sustainable and secure
development of even better foods, feeds, building materials, and a host
of other plant products used in daily life; and improvements in the
health and nutrition of all Americans.
Our bioeconomy and Federal partnership is based upon foundational
plant biology research--the strategic research USDA funds--to make
needed key discoveries. Yet limited funding committed to fundamental
discovery now threatens our national security and leadership. Indeed,
in his 2012 annual letter to the Gates Foundation, Bill Gates wrote,
``Given the central role that food plays in human welfare and national
stability, it is shocking--not to mention short-sighted and potentially
dangerous--how little money is spent on agricultural research.'' \1\
This is especially true considering the significant positive impact
crop and forest plants have on the nation's economy (the agricultural
sector is responsible for one in 12 American jobsespecially true
considering the significant positive impact crop and forest plants have
on the nation's economy (the agricultural sector is responsible for one
in 12 American jobsespecially true considering the significant positive
impact crop and forest plants have on the nation's economy (the
agricultural sector is responsible for one in 12 American jobs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gates, Bill. (Jan 2012). 2012 Annual Letter from Bill Gates.
Retrieved from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter/2012/Pages/
home-en.aspx.
\2\ Vilsack, Tom. (Mar. 9, 2012). Public Comments Before PCAST.
Retrieved from http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/pcast/120309/
globe_show/default_goarchive.cfm?gsid=
1977&type=flv&test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given these concerns and our nation's fiscal situation, the plant
science community has been working toward addressing our nation's
looming challenges--ASPB organized a two-phase Plant Science Research
Summit (held in September 2011 and January 2013). With funding from
USDA, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and
the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Summit brought together
representatives from across the full spectrum of plant science research
to develop a community agenda document. Released in August 2013 as
Unleashing a Decade of Innovation in Plant Science: A Vision for 2015-
2025 (plantsummit.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/
plantsciencedecadalvision10-18-13.pdf), the report puts forth a ten-
year consensus plan to fill critical gaps in our understanding of plant
biology and address the grand challenge of sustainably feeding the
world and providing other useful plant products in the face of
burgeoning population growth, diminishing natural resources, and
climate change.
immediate recommendations
The ASPB membership has extensive expertise and participation in
the academic, industry, and government sectors. Consequently, ASPB is
in an excellent position to articulate the nation's plant science
priorities and standards needed as they relate to agriculture. Our
recommendations are as follows:
--Since the establishment of the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA) and AFRI, interest in USDA research has
increased dramatically--a trend ASPB hopes to see continue in
the future. However, an increased, strategic and focused
investment in competitive funding and its oversight is needed
if the nation is to continue to make ground-breaking
discoveries and accelerate progress toward resolving urgent
national priorities and societal needs. ASPB encourages
Congress to fund AFRI at $383 million in fiscal year 2015,
which, although less than the recently reauthorized level of
$700 million, would provide sound investment in today's fiscal
environment.
--The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) provides vital strategic
research to serve USDA's mission and objectives and as well as
the nation's agricultural sector. The need to bolster and
enhance ARS efforts to leverage and complement AFRI is great
given the challenges in food and energy security. ASPB is
supportive of a strong ARS and recommends a congressional
appropriation of $1.28 billion in fiscal year 2015.
--USDA has focused attention in several key priority areas, including
childhood obesity, climate change, global food security, food
safety, and sustainable bioenergy. Although ASPB appreciates
the value of such strategic focus, we give our most robust
support for AFRI's Foundational Program. This program provides
a basis for outcomes across a wide spectrum, often leading to
groundbreaking developments that cannot be anticipated in
advance. Indeed, it is these discoveries that are the true
engine of success for our bioeconomy.
--Current estimates predict a significant shortfall in the needed
agricultural scientific workforce as the demographics of the
U.S. workforce change.\3\ For example, there is a clear need
for additional training of scientists in the areas of
interdisciplinary energy research and plant breeding. ASPB
applauds the creation of the NIFA Fellows program and calls for
additional funding for specific programs (e.g., training grants
and fellowships) to provide this needed workforce over the next
10 years and to adequately prepare these individuals for
careers in the agricultural research of the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
(Dec. 2012). Report to the President on Agricultural Preparedness and
the Agricultural Research Enterprise, p. 41. Retrieved from
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
pcast_agriculture_20121207.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Considerable research interest is now focused on the use of plant
biomass for energy production. However, if we are to use crops
and forest resources to their full potential, we must expend
extensive effort to improve our understanding of their
underlying biology and development, their agronomic
performance, and their subsequent processing to meet our goals
and aspirations. Therefore, ASPB calls for additional funding
targeted at efforts to increase the utility and agronomic
performance of bioenergy crops using the best and most
imaginative science and technologies possible.
--With NIFA, USDA is in a strong position to cultivate and expand
interagency relationships, as well as relationships with
private philanthropies, to address grand challenges related to
food, renewable energy and bioproducts, the environment, and
health. ASPB appreciates the need to focus resources in key
priority areas. However, ASPB urges a significant increase in
funding to individual grantees, in addition to putting in place
robust evaluations of group awards and larger multi-
institutional partnerships. Paradigm-shifting discoveries
cannot be predicted through collaborative efforts alone; thus
there is an urgent need to maintain a broad, diverse, and
robust research agenda.
--ASPB encourages some flexibility within NIFA's budget to update and
improve its data management capabilities.
Thank you for your consideration of ASPB's testimony. For more
information about ASPB, please visit us at www.aspb.org.
[This statement was submitted by Tyrone C. Spady, PhD, Director of
Legislative and Public Affairs, American Society of Plant Biologists.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony as you consider
fiscal year 2015 funding priorities. Our testimony addresses programs
and activities administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS), and Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS).
usda-ars-national agricultural library--animal welfare information
center
The Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC) serves as a
clearinghouse, training center, and education resource for those
involved in the use of animals for research, testing, and teaching (as
well as other entities covered by the AWA), and the need and demand for
its services continue to outstrip its resources. AWIC's activities
contribute significantly to science-based decisionmaking in animal
care, as the Center disseminates scientific literature on subjects
including husbandry, handling, and care of animals; personnel training;
animal behavior; improved methodologies; environmental enrichment; pain
control; and zoonotic disease. Its services are vitally important to
the nation's biomedical research enterprise and other regulated
entities because they facilitate compliance with specific requirements
of the Federal animal welfare regulations governing research. We
request that AWIC funding remain level with fiscal year 2014
appropriations.
usda-aphis-animal welfare
APHIS's Animal Welfare activities are critical to the proper
regulation and care of animals protected under the Animal Welfare Act
(AWA), 7 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2131--2159, and the Horse Protection Act
(HPA), 15 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1821--1831. AWI requests that, consistent
with the President's fiscal year 2015 budget proposal, $29 million be
allocated to Animal Welfare activities.
usda-aphis-animal welfare--animal welfare act enforcement--class b
dealers
Nearly fifty years after enactment, the AWA routinely fails both to
reliably protect pet owners and animals from Class B dealers who sell
``random source'' dogs and cats for use in research. These dealers use
deceit and fraud to acquire animals, who are often subjected to
shocking cruelty. A National Academy of Sciences study of the use of
Class B dogs and cats in NIH-funded research acknowledged animal
welfare and enforcement problems and noted ``descriptions of thefts
provided by informants in prison . . . and documented accounts of lost
pets that have ended up in research institutions through Class B
dealers.'' \1\ The study concluded that there is no scientific need for
these Class B dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Academy of Sciences Institute for Laboratory Animal
Research, Scientific and Humane Issues in the Use of Random Source Dogs
and Cats in Research (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA must use a costly and time-consuming enforcement protocol for
these random source dealers, involving quarterly inspections (more than
any other licensees) and ``tracebacks,'' in order to attempt to verify
the source of their animals. Congress, too, has spent an inordinate
amount of time reviewing the actions of Class B dealers and prodding
USDA and NIH to address their respective Class B dealer problems. As a
result of the NAS study, a prohibition on the use of dogs and cats from
random source Class B dealers in all NIH-supported research will be
fully in place in 2015.
Although few of these dealers remain, they are an unjustifiable
drain on USDA resources. But as long as it is possible to issue and
renew Class B licenses, this system will continue to waste taxpayer
money and perpetuate the inhumane treatment of animals. For this
reason, we urge the Subcommittee adopt the following language:
Provided, that appropriations herein made shall not be available for
any activities or expense related to the licensing of new Class B
dealers who sell dogs and cats for use in research, teaching, or
testing, or to the renewal of licenses of existing Class B dealers who
sell dogs and cats for use in research, teaching, or testing.
usda-aphis-animal welfare--horse protection act enforcement
The Horse Protection Act of 1970 (HPA) was passed to end soring,
the cruel practice of applying chemical and mechanical irritants the
legs and hooves of horses through to produce an exaggerated gait. Yet
soring, condemned as ``one of the most significant welfare issues
affecting any equine breed or discipline,'' \2\ has continued as
limited funding has hampered enforcement. To enable USDA to better meet
the objectives of the HPA, we request that $893,000 be appropriated for
HPA enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ American Association of Equine Practitioners, Putting the Horse
First: Veterinary Recommendations for Ending the Soring of Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because USDA inspectors are able to attend a mere fraction of
Tennessee Walking Horse shows, monitoring responsibility usually falls
to ``Designated Qualified Persons'' (DQPs), usually industry insiders
with a history of ignoring violations. Reliance on DQPs has been an
abysmal failure. Statistics clearly indicate that the presence of USDA
inspectors at shows results in a far higher rate of noted violations
than occurs when DQPs are present. For instance, USDA has released
foreign substance results gathered through the Horse Protection Program
at horse shows from 2010 through 2013. In 2013, an evaluation of horses
at 17 shows revealed that 62 percent of the samples analyzed were
positive for soring agents.\3\ At the 2013 Tennessee Walking Horse
National Celebration in Shelbyville, Tennessee, 86 of the 128 horses
sampled tested positive for soring agents during USDA inspections, and
at some 2013 shows every single horse examined had been exposed to
soring chemicals.\4\ In 2012, 309 of 478 horses sampled (65 percent)
tested positive for soring agents,5 while in 2011 and 2010, 97 percent
and 86 percent, respectively, had been sored. Data from DQP horse show
inspections in 2009 (the most recent year for which reports are
available) reveal that for 436 shows at which 70,122 inspections were
conducted and 889 violations of any type were cited, only 61, or 0.087
percent of horses inspected, were for prohibited foreign substances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/downloads/
show%20tally%202013%20for%20
web.pdf
\4\ Id.
\5\ USDA-APHIS Horse Protection Program, 2012 Foreign Substance
Results, available athttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/
downloads/show%20tally%202012%20for%20web.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From this comparison, it is clear not only that horse soring
remains a serious problem, but also that there is no substitute for
inspections by USDA personnel to ensure compliance with theWALKING
HORSES (2008).
HPA. The greater the likelihood of a USDA inspection, the greater
the deterrent effect on those who routinely sore their horses.
Enforcement should not be entrusted to individuals with a stake in
maintaining the status quo. USDA cannot make progress in this area
without adequate funding.
usda-aphis-wildlife services--wildlife damage management
We request that APHIS-Wildlife Services' (WS) wildlife damage
management budget be reduced by $13 million and that WS be prohibited
from using funds for lethal wildlife control.
The WS program allocates millions of dollars each year to lethal
wildlife management efforts, relying on methods that are cruel,
ineffective, costly and outdated. WS uses poisons, body-gripping traps,
snares and firearms to indiscriminately kill wildlife--including
endangered species, family pets, and countless non-target animals--
while ignoring humane, cost-efficient approaches to wildlife management
that have been proven effective in the field. These irresponsible
practices threaten not only target and non-target animals, but also the
environment, public safety, national security. Accordingly, we support
the inclusion of language prohibiting the use of USDA funds for WS'
lethal wildlife management activities in the fiscal year 2015
agriculture appropriations bill.
In addition to a restriction on funds for lethal control
activities, we request a reduction in funding from the fiscal year 2014
allocation and USDA's fiscal year 2015 request for WS. The program is
notoriously secretive, and has repeatedly declined to disclose to both
Congress and the public its expenditures on lethal and inhumane
wildlife management practices. Despite this glaring lack of
accountability, WS' budget was increased substantially in fiscal year
2014, and the Administration's budget proposes to maintain that funding
level for fiscal year 2015. Alarmingly, a substantial portion of the
fiscal year 2014 increase was allocated to ``wildlife damage
management,'' the division within WS that is responsible for killing
millions of animals on public and private lands each year. We request
that WS' Wildlife Damage Management budget be reduced by $13 million,
the program's estimated annual expenditure for lethal predator control
practices intended to protect livestock. It should no longer be the
taxpayers' responsibility to subsidize these inhumane, costly practices
to which effective alternatives are readily available.
usda-aphis-wildlife services--wildlife damage management program,
airport safety
APHIS' Airport Wildlife Control Program is intended to address the
control of wildlife at military and civilian airports to reduce the
threat of aircraft striking wildlife, which can lead to aircraft
damage, delays, and accidents. While the media often sensationalize
such incidents, the statistical likelihood of a bird or other wildlife
striking an aircraft is exceedingly small. The chances of a strike
resulting in aircraft destruction, damage, delay, or an accident is
even more remote. Indeed, since 1988, according to the Bird Strike
Committee USA, only slightly more than 250 people worldwide have been
killed as a result of bird strikes on aircraft. This loss of life is
tragic, but when compared to the total number of aircraft passengers
(commercial and civilian) worldwide since 1988, it is obvious that the
risk of dying as a result of a bird strike is infinitesimal. Similarly,
though the Federal Aviation Administration documented 133,000 reported
wildlife strikes (bird strikes comprise approximately 97.5 percent of
all wildlife strikes) at civilian and military airports in the United
States between 1990 and 2011, only an extraordinarily small fraction of
these reported strikes resulted in the damage, delay, or destruction of
an aircraft or injuries or death to passengers. Furthermore, when the
total number of aircraft (private, commercial, and military) takeoffs
and landings are considered over that 21 year period, again the risk of
an aircraft striking wildlife is exceedingly small.
Recognizing that the risk of wildlife strikes to aircraft is real
but not statistically significant, we ask that any funds allocated to
the airport wildlife control program be earmarked only for non-lethal
management programs. There are a variety of non-lethal strategies that
are effective and feasible to address wildlife strikes to aircraft
including fencing, habitat management, runway sweeps using pyrotechnics
and other noise-making devices, trained falcons, removal of standing
water/areas that attract birds/wildlife on airport properties,
modification of airport structures to deter bird use, and public/
airport employee education to avoid behaviors (i.e., feeding birds)
that may attract animals to airports.
usda-aphis-wildlife services--oral rabies vaccination program
APHIS' oral rabies vaccination (ORV) activities, which are carried
out under the National Rabies Management Program, have made significant
progress in controlling the spread of rabies in the United States in an
effective, humane, and cost-effective manner. To ensure that this
success continues, we request that $23.76 million be allocated to the
ORV program for fiscal year 2015, consistent with the program's
estimated fiscal year 2014 expenditures.
usda-aphis-investigative and enforcement services
APHIS' Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES) handles
investigations related to enforcement of the laws and regulations for
APHIS' programs, which involves: collection of evidence; civil and
criminal investigations; and investigations carried out in conjunction
with Federal, state and local enforcement agencies. IES, in
collaboration with USDA's Office of the General Counsel, also handles
stipulations and formal administrative proceedings. We request that IES
funding remain level with fiscal year 2014 appropriations so that the
Service may fulfill its full range of responsibilities, particularly
its increasing HPA and AWA investigatory demands.
usda-fsis--humane methods of slaughter act enforcement
We appreciate the generous support provided by Congress during the
past decade for USDA's enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter
Act (HMSA). However, while enforcement has increased in recent years,
attention to the issue remains uneven among districts.
An analysis of Humane Activities Tracking System (HATS) data
reveals that some USDA districts spend 10-20 times the number of hours
on humane enforcement, per animal slaughtered, as other districts.
Overall, USDA continues to allot an extremely small percentage of its
resources to humane slaughter. For example, in fiscal year 2012, only
2.8 percent of all FSIS verification procedures were performed for
activities related to humane handling and slaughter.
Repeat violators present a major enforcement problem for FSIS. Of
the 285 federally inspected plants that have been suspended for humane
slaughter violations since January 1, 2008, 33 percent have been
suspended more than once within a 1 year period. Moreover, 56 plants
have been suspended on three or more occasions during the past 5 years.
Federal inspection personnel have inadequate training in humane
enforcement and inadequate access to humane slaughter expertise.
Enforcement documents reveal that inspectors often react differently
when faced with similar violations. District Veterinary Medical
Specialists (DVMS) are stationed in each district to assist plant
inspectors with humane enforcement and to serve as a liaison between
the district office and headquarters on humane matters. However, the
work load of each of the DVMSs, which includes visiting each meat and
poultry plant within the district to perform humane audits and
conducting verification visits following suspensions, severely limits
the effectiveness of the role.
The problems of inadequate and inconsistent enforcement can be
resolved by increasing the number and qualifications of the personnel
assigned to humane handling and slaughter duties. No fewer than 148
full-time equivalent positions should be employed for purposes
dedicated solely to inspections and enforcement related to the HMSA. In
addition, the number of DVMS positions should be increased to a minimum
of two per district. Enforcement records suggest that violations are
reported with greater frequency in the presence of outside inspection
personnel, such as DVMSs. Hiring additional DVMSs will provide for
increased auditing and training to help uncover problems before they
result in egregious humane handling incidents.
usda-fsis--horse slaughter facility inspections
In 2013, Congress approved language to prevent the use of tax
dollars to fund horse slaughter facility inspections. This language is
critical to protect horses, taxpayers, communities, and public health.
We strongly support the inclusion of this prohibition in the fiscal
year 15 budget.
[This statement was submitted by Christopher J. Heyde, Deputy
Director, Government and Legal Affairs, Animal Welfare Institute.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform
(CCAR)
On behalf of the farmer, rancher, and consumer groups represented
by the Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform (CCAR), I am providing
this testimony to urge the Subcommittee to exclude from the bill any
legislative riders to limit the authority of the Secretary's regulatory
authority under the Packers and Stockyards Act. The member
organizations of CCAR include: the Alabama Contract Poultry Growers
Association, Contract Poultry Growers Association of the Virginias,
Food & Water Watch, Hmong National Development, Inc., National Family
Farm Coalition, National Farmers Union, National Sustainable
Agriculture Coalition, and the Rural Advancement Foundation
International-USA.
The Packers and Stockyards Act is one of the most important Federal
statutes for our nation's livestock and poultry farmers and ranchers.
This is because it prohibits meatpackers and poultry companies from
using their market power to subject farmers and ranchers to
anticompetitive, deceptive, fraudulent and abusive
business practices.
Although the Act was originally enacted in 1921, its importance is
even greater now because of the extent to which these firms have become
vertically integrated, giving them even greater market power and
enabling contracting practices that are even more abusive.
Understanding these trends, the 2008 Farm Bill required USDA to
write regulations to address some of the abusive and anti-competitive
practices that have become common in the livestock and poultry sectors.
Based in part on the Farm Bill requirements, as well as testimony heard
during a series of Agriculture Competition workshops hosted by USDA and
the U.S. Department of Justice, USDA issued a package of proposed rules
in June of 2010 to address many of these concerns.
Since the date these rules were first proposed by USDA's Grain
Inspection Packer and Stockyards Agency (GISPA), the meatpacker and
poultry company groups have launched a full-scale attack on the
regulations and the authority of the Secretary to enforcement many
aspects of the proposed GIPSA rule.
The appropriations process has been one of the venues for those
attacks, and unfortunately, a legislative rider limiting the
Secretary's authorities under the Packer and Stockyards Act has been
included in the agriculture appropriations provisions of each of the
past three fiscal years. While each of the 3 riders has been somewhat
different, they each have significantly undermined important basic
protections for our nation's livestock and poultry farmers and
ranchers.
The GIPSA rider included in the fiscal year 2014 appropriations
cycle (Section 744, Division A, Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2014-H.R. 3547) prohibits the Secretary from taking action on a long
list of commonsense protections for our nation's livestock and poultry
farmers. Here are just some of the protections that the fiscal year
2014 GIPSA rider prohibits:
--Regulations to make it an unfair practice under the Packers and
Stockyards Act for meatpackers and poultry companies to
retaliate against farmers for exercising their rights to free
speech and/or association. This includes providing protection
for farmers who speak out publicly, or to USDA officials or
Members of Congress, about what is taking place on their farms
and with their contracts.
--Regulations to require meatpackers and poultry companies to give
farmers statistical information and data about how their pay is
calculated, if the farmer requests such information.
--Regulations to prohibit meatpackers and poultry companies from
using contracts to force farmers to give up their legal right
to a jury trial to address future disputes with the company.
--Regulations to require meatpackers and poultry companies to submit
to GIPSA sample contracts that they are using in their contract
relationships with farmers, with a clear statement that all
confidential business information and trade secrets are to be
redacted.
--Regulations to clarify that it is an unfair practice under the Act
for poultry companies to require farmers to compete against
each other for performance pay, unless they are given the same
type of birds to raise by the company. This addresses a current
poultry company practice of giving one farmer a breed of bird
that performs poorly in feed conversion efficiency, while
giving another farmer a better-performing breed of bird, and
then requiring both farmers to compete for performance pay
based on feed conversion success of the bird during grow-out
period. This practice is fraudulent because it allows the
companies to make farmers pay the cost for a company decision
to produce some chickens with lower feed conversion attributes.
The farmer has no choice about the quality of chicken placed on
his farm by the poultry company, and is rewarded or penalized
based on factors outside the farmer's control.
--Regulations to clarify that the Packers and Stockyards Act does not
require farmers to show a competitive injury to the entire
industry in order to prove that they have been harmed by unfair
and deceptive trade practices or other anti-competitive
practices of meatpackers or poultry integrators. In other
words, if a poultry company has used fraudulent or deceptive
business practices in a manner that defrauds a poultry grower
out of thousands of dollars of pay, they should not have to
prove that the action by the company is likely to cause a
competitive injury across the entire poultry sector. The
Packers and Stockyards Act was written specifically to provide
protection for individual farmers in their dealings with
meatpackers and poultry companies. In recent years, some courts
have reinterpreted the law to require that farmers prove
competitive injury beyond themselves, and this GIPSA regulation
was intended to clarify the original intent and meaning of the
statute.
It is important to note that during the 2014 Farm Bill debate, the
Farm Bill conferees rejected a strong push by the meatpacker and
poultry companies to include a provision in the final bill that would
have placed great limits on the authority of the Secretary to enforce
many aspects of the Packers and Stockyards Act. Thisprovision, similar
but not identical to the GIPSA rider in recent appropriations bills,
was firmly rejected by the authorizing Committee, and excluded from the
final 2014 Farm Bill.
We strongly urge the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee
to do the same, and reject any legislative riders to limit the
Secretary's authority under the Packers and Stockyards Act.
[This statement was submitted by Steven Etka, Policy Director,
Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Catholic Relief Services
Thank you Chairman Pryor and Ranking Member Blunt for receiving
this testimony. Catholic Relief Services (CRS) requests that fiscal
year (FY) 2015 appropriations provide at minimum $1.55 billion for the
Food for Peace program, $200 million for the McGovern-Dole Food for
Education program, and $80 million for the Local and Regional
Procurement program. Additionally, we request that you direct amounts
of Food for Peace funding to certain specific purposes.
crs and the u.s. catholic church
CRS is the international relief and development agency of the U.S.
Catholic Church. We are one of the largest implementing partners of
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) food aid programs. Our work reaches millions of
poor and vulnerable people in nearly 90 countries. CRS works with
people and communities based on need, without regard to race, creed, or
nationality. CRS often partners with local institutions of the Catholic
Church and other local civil society groups, which are essential to
connecting us with communities that are often inaccessible to others.
the food for peace program
Approximately 842 million people worldwide face hunger on a daily
basis. People facing chronic hunger do not have access to enough food
to maintain healthy and productive lives.
Often times it is the most vulnerable in a community who suffer the
greatest from chronic hunger--women, smallholder farmers, the elderly
and children. Overall, communities that suffer from chronic hunger are
less productive and less stable.
U.S. food aid programs, led by Food for Peace, help to address
chronic hunger. Food for Peace development programs target assistance
to poor and vulnerable communities that improve their long-term food
security. CRS implements Food for Peace development programs in ten
countries. Through these programs beneficiaries are able to grow more
food, earn more to purchase the food they need, and help in
infrastructure improvements that bolster community resilience. A good
of example our Food for Peace funded is in Madagascar.
CRS leads a consortium implementing the Strengthening and Accessing
Livelihood Opportunities for Household Impact (SALOHI) project in
Madagascar. For its part, CRS has implemented a diverse array of
programming to aid farmers and vulnerable populations. Over 58,000
farmers participated in farmer field schools that introduced improved
rice varieties capable of increasing yields. Farmers learn agribusiness
skills to better manage their crops post- harvest leading to greater
profits, and to create better linkages with rice buyers and
agricultural tool suppliers. Food rations are provided in exchange for
community labor to rehabilitate critical infrastructure, such as a dam
that will help irrigate fields. Community health volunteers in the
program have treated 15,000 malnourished children and taught their
parents better nutritional practices to use for lasting impact. And,
over 30,000 people have joined Village Savings and Loan (VSL) programs
that help poor farmers pool, save and manage their money, allowing them
to raise capital to purchase additional land to farm and other needs.
In addition to addressing chronic hunger, Food for Peace programs
assist the millions of people forced into hunger due to sudden and
severe disruptions of their normal lives. Disruptions can take the form
of natural disasters, like Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, or they
could be the result of armed conflict as we have seen in Syria.
While the emergency needs in the Philippines and Syria have been
well documented in the news, we feel additional attention needs to be
place on two other countries in the midst of emergencies--the Central
Africa Republic (CAR) and South Sudan. In both cases, internal violence
in recent months has sparked a significant number of refugees and
Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). In CAR, at the peak of the
violence CRS worked with private resources to help shelter, feed and
care for 40,000 IDPs who had taken refuge at the compound of
Archdiocese of Bossangoa. More than half of the country's 4.5 million
people are in need of assistance, with an estimated 625,000 IDPs in CAR
and many more in neighboring countries as refugees.
In South Sudan, the violence has led to over 800,000 IDPs and over
250,000 refugees in neighboring countries. CRS is currently reaching
more than 12,000 IDP households across South Sudan. CRS had been
implementing a Food for Peace development program in South Sudan when
fighting broke out. The instability has prevented implementation of the
development program in recent months, and CRS has requested a
modification to its agreement in order to use program resources to meet
emergency needs. We have taken such measures in the past, specifically
in Mali in 2013 and in Haiti following the 2010 earthquake, and hope
USAID will be able to accommodate this requested modification as well.
food for peace and mcgovern-dole funding requests
CRS requests that Food for Peace receive at minimum $1.55 billion,
and McGovern-Dole receive at minimum $200 million in the fiscal year
2015 appropriations. These increases over fiscal year 2014 appropriated
amounts are largely to take into account the increased costs for
transportation of food that U.S. food aid programs now have to bear as
a result of the 2013 Murray-Ryan budget deal.
For the last several years transportation costs related to the
overseas shipment of U.S. commodities in food aid programs--Food for
Peace, McGovern-Dole, and Food for Progress--have been partially offset
by reimbursements provided through Transportation Authorization bills.
These reimbursements were reinvested into food aid programs, allowing
them to help more people. However, in last year's budget deal this
reimbursement mechanism was struck from the law. The practical effect
of this change is that food aid programs will now shoulder the full
cost of overseas transportation, which will cut the amount of food that
can be purchased and shipped, and ultimately decrease the number of
people helped compared to present levels.
CRS estimates that lost transportation reimbursements could be
between $50 and $70 million each year. Additionally, CRS estimates the
McGovern-Dole and Food for Progress programs each will lose between $10
and $15 million each year. In order to maintain the reach that food aid
programs had in fiscal year 2014, an increase in funding to Food for
Peace and McGovern- Dole is necessary. We also note that while Food for
Progress is not directly appropriated annually, a $40 million cap on
transportation costs in its authorization gives it no flexibility to
absorb additional transportation costs, and we ask the Subcommittee to
explore ways of addressing the unique impact that the elimination of
reimbursements will have on that program.
We would also like to point out that further increases in food aid
funding may be needed to offset another proposed and troubling change.
On April 1, 2014, the House passed H.R. 4005, the Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, which reauthorizes the Coast Guard
and maritime transportation legislation for 2 years. Our concern with
this bill pertains to Section 318 that requires 75 percent of overseas
food aid shipments to be carried on U.S. flagged vessels, an increase
from the current 50 percent requirement. According to sponsors of the
bill, using U.S. flagged vessels is 30 percent more expensive than
using regular commercial channels. Should H.R. 4005 be enacted into law
with this provision, an even greater portion of food aid funding will
go to overseas transportation instead of providing food and other
assistance to hungry people. As such, higher levels of funding for Food
for Peace and McGovern-Dole will be required to offset these additional
costs and maintain the present reach of food aid programs.
food for peace development program funding
The recently enacted Farm Bill reauthorization maintains a minimum
commitment for Food for Peace development programs of $350 million a
year, but also allows the allocation for such programs to rise to 30
percent of overall Food for Peace funding. Food for Peace development
programs have been appropriated $375 million in each of the last two
fiscal years, and this figure falls within the new funding range set by
the Farm Bill. We hope USAID will consider this as guidance from your
Subcommittee in their allocation of Food for Peace funding in fiscal
year 2015.
monetization in food for peace
The recently enacted Farm Bill also increased the amount of Food
for Peace funding going to its existing cash account, referred to as
202e, and broadened the uses of this funding to include directly paying
for Food for Peace program costs. It is our understanding that this
change was made primarily to reduce the need to monetize food aid
commodities.
Monetization of in-kind food donations is an inefficient means to
raise proceeds to payfor Food for Peace program costs. CRS has
implemented monetization programs for many years and our experience
shows that on average 25 percent of the value in the commodities and
shipping costs are lost in these transactions. It is our goal to reduce
the need to engage in monetization in Food for Peace programs. As
provided in the fiscal year 2014 appropriations, we request that you
direct an additional $35 million in this year's Food for Peace budget
to 202e for the express purpose of replacing monetization. This
additional $35 million in 202e, along with the new flexibilities in the
Farm Bill, should provide enough cash funding to forgo the use of
monetization in all Food for Peace programs except for one (note, the
recently passed Farm Bill retains a requirement that at least 15
percent of Food for Peace development resources be dedicated to
monetization and the one remaining monetization program is projected to
meet this requirement).
local and regional procurement program
CRS requests that the Subcommittee fund the permanent Local and
Regional Procurement (LRP) program, authorized by the recently enacted
Farm Bill, at $80 million for fiscal year 2015. CRS supports the use of
LRP in conjunction with McGovern-Dole programming, as was suggested in
authorizing language. We also recognize that LRP can be useful in other
food assistance programming and should be available to project
implementers to achieve food security objectives. CRS has successfully
implemented projects in Mali and Burkina Faso in conjunction with
McGovern-Dole programs under the auspices of the pilot LRP program
authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill. In these projects, we found that
using locally sourced food helped lay the ground work for
sustainability of the programs, by connecting local farmers to schools,
helping these farmers produce appropriate products for local schools,
and teaching parent-teacher associations to purchase, prepare, and
manage locally grown foods. Food costs were also generally lower, thus
making it more likely that national governments could ultimately assume
the costs of implementing the program. We also note that replacing US
commodities with locally produced ones would require a gradual
transition period and that even after this period, US commodities would
likely be needed since local crop yields can vary significantly from
yearto year and thus additional food would be required to fill these
gaps.
[This statement was submitted by Dr. Carolyn Woo, President and
Chief Executive Officer of Catholic Relief Services.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Center for Science in the Public Interest
2015. My testimony is focused on appropriations for the food
programs at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). We are requesting additional budget
authority above the President's request for FDA's Foods Program of $100
million and for the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) at USDA
of $9.3 million.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is a nonprofit
health advocacy and education organization focused on health and
nutrition, and food safety issues. CSPI is supported principally by the
900,000 subscribers to its Nutrition Action HealthLetter and by
foundation grants. We do not accept government or industry funding.
fda funding levels
FDA is in the third year of implementing the Food Safety
Modernization Act (FSMA). Under FSMA, food producers, importers, and
manufacturers are responsible for the safety of the food they market to
consumers. FDA is required to oversee the food industry's efforts by
issuing risk-based standards for growing, manufacturing, and importing
food, and by conducting compliance inspections. For FSMA implementation
in fiscal year 2015, the President has proposed a $20.6 million
increase in budget authority for the Foods Program at FDA.
Additionally, the President has proposed two new fees to support FSMA
activities. The user fee on imported foods would generate $137.5
million to support border inspections and implementation of FSMA's
import provisions. A registration and inspection user fee would
generate $50.7 million to support inspection programs.
In recent years, Congress has recognized the need to increase food
safety resources at FDA and fund implementation of FSMA. We are
grateful for the Subcommittee's support and urge that it continue to
provide the agency with adequate funding to carry out its critical food
safety mission.
It is our belief that an increase of $20.6 million is inadequate,
and that it is the two fee proposals that outline the true scope of
what the agency needs to fully implement FSMA. However, Congress has
not been receptive to new user fee proposals in prior budgets, and we
do not anticipate that changing in the current budget cycle. We request
that the Subcommittee increase appropriations for food safety,
consistent with its past actions, by at least $90 million for FSMA
implementation above the President's request for fiscal year 2015. The
basis for our request is the May, 2013, report mandated by FSMA in
which the agency estimated its funding will have to increase by $400
million to $450 million above the fiscal year 2012 baseline over 5
years to fully implement FSMA. While not fully funding the needs of the
agency for implementing FSMA, the requested increase puts FDA's funding
level on a closer trajectory to fulfill its responsibilities than would
the President's budget.
In addition, we believe FDA needs at least an additional $10
million to meet critical public health needs in the area of nutrition
policy. FDA has made an initial determination to remove the GRAS
(Generally Recognized as Safe) status for partially hydrogenated oils
(PHO), a decision that would save an estimated 3,000 to 7,000 lives
annually. The comment period on this proposal has just closed and it is
incumbent on FDA to make a final determination in an expeditious manner
and implement an aggressive, but reasonable, timetable for industry to
comply.
The Agency has also recently published a proposed revision of the
Nutrition Facts label that provides for many important improvements
based on today's scientific evidence, including a bolder statement of
calories, removal of unnecessary text, and adding a line for ``added
sugars.'' Again, it is critical that FDA acts with dispatch in
reviewing the comments that this proposal will engender and make a
final decision with a timely implementation schedule. It has been more
than 20 years since the Nutrition Facts panel was established and our
current knowledge of the roles various nutrients play in our health
should be reflected in today's food labeling. Maintaining the momentum
on this issue is essential to reaping the benefits of these changes.
FDA also has much unfinished business in nutrition policy. Front-
of-package (FOP) labeling and the clarity of ingredient labels need to
be addressed. FDA has sponsored consumer research on front-of-package
nutrition labels, and 3 years ago the Institute of Medicine (IOM)
recommended that FDA mandate a uniform national system of FOP labels.
FDA should have seized the opportunity provided by the Nutrition Facts
panel changes to address the confusing signals sent by many food
packages on the front of the label, which every consumer sees. Yet the
primary display panels on packages are often jumbles of messages about
healthy aspects of food that are misleading when the food is considered
as a whole. Also, ingredient labels on many packages remain painfully
difficult to read. FDA should have sufficient resources to address this
important outstanding business on labeling.
Moreover, more definitive action on sodium is required. Four years
ago, the IOM published a landmark report laying out a road map for FDA
to reduce sodium in the food supply. The Dietary Guidelines for
Americans recommends that people over 50, African-Americans, and people
with hypertension--or more than half of all adults--should limit
themselves to 1,500 milligrams of sodium per day. Americans average
about 4,000 milligrams of sodium per day. That higher level is causing
about 100,000 more deaths per year from heart attacks and strokes than
would occur if people were consuming 2,000 milligrams per day. While
the revisions to the Nutrition Facts panel include a very modest
reduction in the daily value for sodium from 2,400 mg to 2,300 mg, much
more is needed, especially the publication of a guidance for industry
that would provide targets for lowering sodium.
In addition, FDA has yet to publish the final rule for calorie
labeling in chain restaurants, where Americans consume one-third of
meals and caloric intake is higher than at home. FDA must not let these
matters be further delayed, and for this kind of forward movement on
public health, with the potential for saving tens of thousands of lives
and tens of billions of dollars annually, the agency requires
resources. These critical public health needs require additional
funding so that FDA has the scientific base and staff resources to act
today, not tomorrow or the day after.
usda funding levels
The President's budget proposes cutting FSIS by $9.3 million in
fiscal year 2015. This is premised upon the agency achieving savings
from implementation of the proposed poultry slaughter inspection
program. Since FSIS has not finalized a rule and has not announced a
date for doing so, this cut seems to put the cart before the horse. The
Subcommittee should reject this premature cut until FSIS can
demonstrate that its program is effective at protecting public health
and can achieve the projected savings. We request the Subcommittee fund
discretionary programs in FSIS at the fiscal year 2014 level of $1,011
million.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the
fiscal year 2015 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.
[This statement was submitted by Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D.,
Executive Director, Center for Science in the Public Interest.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
(CAWCD)
On behalf of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
(CAWCD), I am writing to ask that you include at least $17.5 million
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Environmental Quality
Incentive Program (EQIP) for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program in the fiscal year 2015 Appropriation bill. Funding for the
salinity control program will help protect the water quality of the
Colorado River that is used by approximately 40 million people for
municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate approximately 4
million acres in the United States.
CAWCD manages the Central Arizona Project (CAP), a multi-purpose
water resource development and management project that delivers
Colorado River water into central and southern Arizona. The largest
supplier of renewable water in Arizona, CAP delivers an average of more
than 1.5 million acre-feet of Arizona's 2.8 million acre-foot Colorado
River entitlement each year to municipal and industrial users,
agricultural irrigation districts, and Indian communities.
Our goal at CAP is to provide an affordable, reliable and
sustainable supply of Colorado River water to a service area that
includes more than 80 percent of Arizona's population.
These renewable water supplies are critical to Arizona's economy
and to the economies of Native American communities throughout the
state. Nearly 90 percent of economic activity in the State of Arizona
occurs within CAP's service area. CAP also helps the State of Arizona
meet its water management and regulatory objectives of reducing
groundwater use and ensuring availability of groundwater as a
supplemental water supply during future droughts.
negative impacts of concentrated salts:
Natural and man-induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates
environmental and economic damages. EPA has identified that more than
60 percent of the salt load of the Colorado River comes from natural
sources. Additionally, human activity, principally irrigation, adds to
the salt load of the Colorado River. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) has estimated damages at about $376 million per year.
Modeling by Reclamation indicates that damages will rise to
approximately $577 million per year by the year 2030 without
continuation of the Program. These damages include:
--A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
sector;
--Increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine
disposal for recycling water in the municipal sector;
--An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--An increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector; and
--Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins.
Funding for salinity control will prevent the water quality of the
Colorado River from further degradation and significant increases in
economic damages to municipal, industrial and irrigation users.
history of the usda's colorado river basin salinity control program:
Recognizing the rapidly increasing salinity concentration in the
Lower Colorado River and its impact on water users, Arizona joined with
the other Colorado River Basin States in 1973 and organized the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum). In 1974, the Forum
worked with Congress in the passage of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act (Act) to offset increased damages caused by
continued development and use of the waters of the Colorado River.
Congress authorized a salinity control program (Program) for the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through an amendment of
the Act in 1984. With the enactment of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA), Congress directed that the
Program should continue to be implemented as part of the newly created
EQIP. Since the enactment of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
(FSRIA) in 2002, there have been, for the first time in a number of
years, opportunities to adequately fund the Program within EQIP.
In 2008, Congress passed the Food, Conservation and Energy Act
(FCEA). The FCEA addressed the cost sharing required from the Basin
Funds. In so doing, the FCEA named the cost sharing requirement as the
Basin States Program (BSP). The BSP will provide 30 percent of the
total amount that will be spent each year by the combined EQIP and BSP
effort. With the passage of the Agricultural Act of 2014 the
authorities for USDA to implement salinity control activities in the
Colorado River Basin were continued.
The Program, as set forth in the Act, is to benefit Lower Basin
water users hundreds of miles downstream from the sources of salinity
in the Upper Basin. The salinity of Colorado River waters increases
from about 50 mg/L at its headwaters to more than 700 mg/L in the Lower
Basin. There are very significant economic damages caused downstream by
high salt levels in the water. EQIP is used to improve upstream
irrigation efficiencies which in turn reduce leaching of salts to the
Colorado River. There are also local benefits in the Upper Colorado
River Basin from the Program in the form of soil and environmental
benefits, improved agricultural production, improved water
efficiencies, lower fertilizer and labor costs, and water distribution
and infrastructure improvements. The mix of funding under EQIP, cost
sharing from the Basin States and efforts, and cost sharing brought
forward by local producers have created a most remarkable and
successful partnership.
The threat of salinity continues to be a concern in both the United
States and Mexico. In 2012, a five-year agreement, known as Minute 319,
was signed between the U.S. and Mexico to guide future management of
the Colorado River. Among the key issues addressed in Minute 319
included an agreement to maintain salinity standards. The CAWCD and
other key water providers are committed to meeting these goals.
conclusion:
Implementation of salinity control practices through EQIP has
proven to be a very cost-effective method of controlling the salinity
of the Colorado River. CAWCD urges the subcommittee to include at least
$17.5 million from the USDA's Environmental Quality Incentive Program
for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program in the fiscal
year 2015 Appropriation bill. If adequate funds are not appropriated,
significant damages from the higher salt concentrations in the water
will be more widespread in the United States and Mexico.
[This statement was submitted by David V. Modeer, General Manager,
Central Arizona Project.]
______
Letter From the Choose Clean Water
March 28, 2014
Hon. Mark Pryor,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies,
Washington, D.C. 20510
Hon. Roy Blunt,
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies,
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chairman Pryor and Ranking Member Blunt: As members of the
Choose Clean Water Coalition we are requesting continued support for
clean water in the Chesapeake Bay watershed through the conservation
programs of the new Farm Bill (the Agricultural Act of 2014). There are
87,000 farms in the Chesapeake region, and those that are well run
protect their water resources and add much to our landscape,
environment and economy. We want to ensure that these responsible farms
and farmers remain economically viable. These conservation programs are
critical for maintaining and restoring clean water to the rivers and
streams throughout the Chesapeake Bay region, and for the Bay itself.
These programs are also essential for the agricultural sector to meet
requirements under the Clean Water Act.
We urge you to oppose cuts to mandatory agricultural conservation
programs in fiscal year 2015. The recent enactment of a new Farm Bill
sets us on a new path toward clean water in our region, but only if key
conservation programs are funded as Congress intended.
At least 11 million people in this region get their drinking water
directly from the rivers and streams that flow through the cities,
towns and farms throughout our region. The quality of this water is
critical to both human health and to the regional economy. The efforts
to clean the Chesapeake began a generation ago under President Reagan
in 1983. In his 1984 State of the Union speech President Reagan said,
``Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative
challenge, it's common sense.''
In order to follow a common sense path to maintain economically
viable well run farms and to have healthy local water and a restored
Chesapeake Bay, which is critical for our regional economy, we request
full fundingfor the authorized amount in the Farm Bill for the
following programs in fiscal year 2015:
u.s. department of agriculture--natural resources conservation service
(nrcs)
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)--$1.6 billion
This national Farm Bill conservation program provides a formula
based allocation to farmers by state and is used for various
conservation practices, such as nutrient management, cover crops,
conservation tillage, fencing animals out of streams, restoring
vegetative buffers along streams, etc., that are critical to protecting
and restoring water quality throughout the region and the nation. EQIP
has been essential over the years in this region for farmers to
implement and maintain practices that enhance their operations and
benefit the local environment. We support full funding for the $1.6
billion for which this program is authorized in the new Farm Bill. This
funding level is also critical to the success of the Regional
Conservation Partnership Program that is allocated 7 percent of EQIP
funds.
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)--$100 million
We support the $100 million authorized level of this new Farm Bill
program, as well as the President's $100 million budget request for
fiscal year 2015. A number of former Farm Bill programs, including the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative, were ended and incorporated into
the new RCPP. In order to continue the success that our region's
farmers have had in reducing their impacts to local waters and the Bay
over the past 5 years we strongly urge you to fully fund the RCPP in
fiscal year 2015 and beyond. This new program is critical to continuing
the march toward clean water throughout our region.
Thank you for your consideration on this very important request to
maintain funding for these programs which are critical to both our
agricultural community and for clean water throughout the mid-Atlantic
region.
Sincerely,
1000 Friends of Maryland
American Rivers
Anacostia Watershed Society Audubon Naturalist Society Blue Water
Baltimore Chapman Forest Foundation
Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future
Clean Water Action Conservation Pennsylvania Delaware Nature Society
Elk Creeks Watershed Association
Friends of Dyke Marsh
Friends of Frederick County
Friends of Lower Beaverdam Creek
IFriends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River
IFriends of the Rappahannock Friends of the Rivers of Virginia
Interfaith Partners for the Chesapeake James River Association
Loudoun Wildlife Conservancy
Maryland Academy of Sciences at the Maryland Science Center
Maryland Conservation Council
Maryland League of Conservation Voters Mattawoman Watershed Society
National Parks Conservation Association National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nature Abounds
New York State Council Trout Unlimited Pennsylvania Council of Churches
Pennsylvania Council of Trout Unlimited Piedmont Environmental Council
Potomac Conservancy
Rivanna Conservation Society Rock Creek Conservancy Sassafras River
Association
Savage River Watershed Association Shenandoah Riverkeeper Shenandoah
Valley Network Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna
St. Mary's River Watershed Association Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership Trout Unlimited
Trout Unlimited Mid-?Atlantic Council Upper Susquehanna Coalition
Virginia Conservation Network
Virginia League of Conservation Voters
Waterkeepers Chesapeake
West Virginia Rivers Coalition
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
Waters from the Colorado River are used by approximately 40 million
people for municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate
approximately 4 million acres in the United States. Natural and man-
induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates environmental and
economic damages. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has
estimated the currently quantifiable damages at about $376 million per
year. Modeling by Reclamation indicates that the quantifiable damages
will rise to approximately $577 million per year by the year 2030
without continuation of the Program. Congress authorized the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program (Program) in 1974 to offset
increased damages caused by continued development and use of the waters
of the Colorado River. The USDA portion of the Program, as authorized
by Congress and funded and administered by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) under the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP), is an essential part of the overall effort. A funding
level of $17 million to $18 million annually is required to prevent
further degradation of the quality of the Colorado River and increased
downstream economic damages.
In enacting the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974,
Congress directed that the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program should be implemented in the most cost-effective way. The
Program is currently funded under EQIP through NRCS and under
Reclamation's Basinwide Program. The
Act requires that the basin states cost share 30 percent of the
overall effort. Historically, recognizing that agricultural on-farm
improvements were some of the most cost-effective strategies, Congress
authorized a program for the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) through amendment of the Act in 1984. With the enactment of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA),
Congress directed that the Program should continue to be implemented as
part of the newly created Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Since the enactment of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
(FSRIA) in 2002, there have been, for the first time in a number of
years, opportunities to adequately fund the Program within EQIP. In
2008, Congress passed the Food, Conservation and Energy Act (FCEA). The
FCEA addressed the cost sharing required from the Basin Funds. In so
doing, the FCEA named the cost sharing requirement as the Basin States
Program (BSP). The BSP will provide 30 percent of the total amount that
will be spent each year by the combined EQIP and BSP effort. With the
passage of the Agricultural Act of 2014 the authorities for USDA to
implement salinity control activities in the Colorado River Basin were
continued.
The Program, as set forth in the Act, is to benefit Lower Basin
water users hundreds of miles downstream from the sources of salinity
in the Upper Basin. The salinity of Colorado River waters increases
from about 50 mg/L at its headwaters to more than 700 mg/L in the Lower
Basin. There are very significant economic damages caused downstream by
high salt levels in the water. EQIP is used to improve upstream
irrigation efficiencies which in turn reduce leaching of salts to the
Colorado River. There are also local benefits in the Upper Colorado
River Basin from the Program in the form of soil and environmental
benefits, improved agricultural production, improved water
efficiencies, lower fertilizer and labor costs, and water distribution
and infrastructure improvements. Local producers submit cost-effective
applications under EQIP in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and offer to cost
share in the acquisition of new irrigation equipment. The mix of
funding under EQIP, cost share from the Basin States and efforts and
cost share brought forward by local producers has created a most
remarkable and successful partnership.
After longstanding urgings from the states and directives from
Congress, NRCS has recognized that this Program is different than small
watershed enhancement efforts common to EQIP. In the case of the
Colorado River salinity control effort, the watershed to be considered
stretches more than 1,400 miles from the Colorado River's headwater in
the Rocky Mountains to the Colorado River's terminus in the Gulf of
California in Mexico. Each year the NRCS State Conservationists for
Colorado, Utah and Wyoming prepare a three-year funding plan for the
salinity efforts under EQIP. The Forum supports this funding plan which
recognizes the need for $17.5M in fiscal year 2015. This includes the
moneys needed for both on-farm and technical assistance. State and
local cost-sharing is triggered by the Federal appropriation. The Forum
appreciates the efforts of NRCS leadership and the support of this
Subcommittee in implementing the Program.
The Forum is composed of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona,
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum
is charged with reviewing the Colorado River's water quality standards
every 3 years. In so doing, it adopts a Plan of Implementation
consistent with these standards. The level of appropriation requested
in this testimony is in keeping with the adopted Plan of
Implementation. If adequate funds are not appropriated, significant
damages from the higher salinity concentrations in the water will be
more widespread in the United States and Mexico.
Concentration of salt in the Colorado River causes approximately
$376 million in quantified damages and significantly more in
unquantified damages in the United States and results in poor water
quality for United States users. Damages occur from:
--a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
sector,
--increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine
disposal for recycling water in the municipal sector.
--a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector,
--an increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector,
--an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector,
--a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector, and
--difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins.
Over the years, NRCS personnel have developed a great working
relationship with farmers within the Colorado River Basin. Maintaining
salinity control achieved by implementation of past practices requires
continuing education and technical assistance from NRCS personnel.
Additionally, technical assistance is required for planning and design
of future projects. Lastly, the continued funding for the monitoring
and evaluation of existing projects is essential to maintaining the
salinity reduction already achieved.
In summary, implementation of salinity control practices through
EQIP has proven to be a very cost effective method of controlling the
salinity of the Colorado River and is an essential component to the
overall Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. Continuation of
EQIP with adequate funding levels will prevent the water quality of the
Colorado River from further degradation and significantly increased
economic damages to municipal, industrial and irrigation users.
______
Prepared Statement of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
On behalf of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and the approximately
30,000 people with cystic fibrosis (CF) in the United States, we are
pleased to submit the following testimony to the Senate Appropriations
Committee's Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2015. In
order to encourage efficient review of drugs for cystic fibrosis and
other rare diseases, we urge the Committee to prioritize the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) in fiscal year 2015 by providing the highest
possible funding level for this essential agency. We encourage special
consideration and support for the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (CDER), its Office of New Drugs (OND), and the Office of
Orphan Products Development (OOPD).
The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation is appreciative of the fiscal year
2014 funding level the Committee provided the Food and Drug
Administration, an increase of $91 million over the fiscal year 2013
enacted level. However, as the agency's responsibilities continue to
grow and we enter an unprecedented era of innovation in drug
development for rare diseases, even more needs to be done.
Cystic fibrosis is a rare genetic disease that causes the body to
produce abnormally thick mucus that clogs the lungs and other bodily
systems, resulting in life-threatening infections and other
complications. There are nearly 2,000 mutations of the CF gene that can
impact those with CF. In recent years, genetically-targeted treatments
have become a reality for cystic fibrosis patients with particular CF
mutations, changing the face of this chronic disease for a small
portion people of with CF. Now, therapies that target other mutations
are moving through the pipeline.
With these groundbreaking advancements, clinical trial design
issues have been identified by cystic fibrosis experts that may arise
in review of future treatments. For example, researchers and clinicians
are concerned about the challenges inherent in executing placebo-
controlled trials for genetically-targeted treatments when successful,
genetically-targeted drugs are already approved and on the market.
Outcome measures for young children and infants and the need for
flexibility for the use of markers reasonably likely to predict
clinical outcome are also concerns. How to accelerate classification of
biomarkers, test combinations of drugs in populations that might
include patients with several different CF mutations, develop and test
single and combination therapies in n of 1 trials (those that consist
of a single patient), and develop and implement Patient Reported
Outcomes (PROs) are all questions that need to be considered as we
enter this era of personalized medicine.
The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and the patients, families,
researchers, and clinicians we represent commend the FDA for its
flexible and patient-centered approach to drug development. The
agency's flexible attitude toward new drug review has produced
significant treatment advances for those with CF, and demonstrates how
the funding the agency receives is used effectively and efficiently.
We also note that FDA has moved expeditiously to implement a number
of important provisions of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and
Innovation Act (FDASIA), including but not limited to the breakthrough
therapy designation, and to convene public meetings to consider
important questions related to patient-focused drug development in a
number of different therapeutic areas.
However, it is important that the FDA use the resources provided by
this Committee to make the most of all tools at its disposal as it
considers innovative new treatments and confronts the challenges ahead.
As the Committee considers next year's funding for the FDA, the CF
Foundation encourages the Committee to direct the Food and Drug
Administration to fully implement Section 903 of FDASIA, Consultation
with External Experts on Rare Diseases, Targeted Therapies, and Genetic
Targeting of Treatments. Signed into law nearly 2 years ago, we
encourage the FDA to utilize this provision to the fullest extent
possible.
Section 903 requires the agency to ensure that opportunities exist
for FDA consultation with rare disease experts. Specifically, it
states, ``The Secretary shall develop and maintain a list of external
experts who, because of their special expertise, are qualified to
provide advice on rare disease issues . . . The Secretary may, when
appropriate to address a specific regulatory question, consult such
external experts on issues related to the review of new drugs and
biological products for rare diseases and drugs and biological products
that are genetically targeted.''
Potential topics of consultation are encompassed in the law. They
include rare diseases and their severity, the unmet medical need
associated with rare diseases, the willingness and ability of
individuals with a rare disease to participate in clinical trials,
assessment of the benefits and risks of therapies to treat rare
diseases, the general design of clinical trials for rare disease
populations, and the demographics and the clinical description of
patient populations.
The CF Foundation strongly supported the inclusion of section 903
in the user fee reauthorization. This type of case-by-case consultation
with external experts, initiated by FDA reviewers, is different from
other provisions of FDASIA. Section 903 calls for proactive outreach to
rare disease experts when ``such consultation is necessary because the
Secretary lacks the specific scientific, medical or technical expertise
necessary for the performance of the Secretary's regulatory
responsibilities.'' This outreach is on a case-by-case basis on a
particular issue. It is not tied to drug sponsors, and it is not part
of a pre-scheduled public meeting or workshop. There are 7,000 rare
diseases, each with their own demographics, consideration of unmet
medical need and disease.
[This statement was submitted by Robert J. Beall, Ph.D., President
and CEO, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology
The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
(FASEB) respectfullyrequests a fiscal year (FY) 2015 appropriation of a
minimum of $335 million for the Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative (AFRI) within the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture. We strongly urge a sustained commitment to investment in
the critical field of agriculture research, with an ultimate target of
the authorized funding level.
FASEB, a federation of 26 scientific societies, represents more
than 115,000 life scientists and engineers, making it the largest
coalition of biomedical research associations in the United States. Our
mission is to advance health and welfare by promoting progress and
education in biological and biomedical sciences.
AFRI is the preeminent competitive grant program of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), facilitating collaborative,
interdisciplinary research at universities and private research
institutions across the country to address significant societal
challenges such as food safety and security and the need for
sustainable agriculture practices. Research funded through AFRI
generates knowledge in the food, nutrition, and agricultural sciences
and translates these discoveries into practice. AFRI also encourages
young scientists to pursue careers in agricultural research by
providing funding for more than 1,500 of the nation's most promising
pre- and postdoctoral scholars in agricultural, nutrition, and food
sciences.
Examples of recent USDA-funded research include:
--New Environmentally Friendly Products: Wood adhesive, used to make
plywood and various other composite materials, is traditionally
a noxious, petroleum based compound. Researchers at the
University of Oregon successfully developed a nontoxic and
environmentally friendly alternative made from soybean flour.
Using the new wood adhesive reduced hazardous air pollutant
emissions at production facilities by 90 percent.
--Increasing Food Safety: AFRI-funded researchers developed a new
two-step process to eliminate E. coli bacteria contamination
from spinach. The process involves using ultrasound waves and a
chemical washing treatment to eliminate 99.99 percent of
bacterial presence from fresh spinach. Industry is exploring
ways to broaden the use of this process for other fresh fruits
and vegetables to reduce contamination and increase consumer
safety.
--Improving the Health of Honeybees: Honeybees are an integral part
of the agriculture system and pollinate over 130 fruit and
vegetable crops in the U.S. Over the past several years, the
honeybee population has been declining due to Colony Collapse
Disorder (CCD), which has tripled the cost of maintaining
beehives. An AFRI-funded research team identified the varroa
mite as a key cause of CCD, helping honeybee breeders to choose
variants that protect against the disorder.
--More Efficient and Effective use of Fungicides: Delivering safe,
healthy fruit to market is the goal of every grower.
Traditionally, growers must estimate the best time to apply
fungicide and how much to use to protect their plants from
fungal rot. AFRI-funded researchers developed a web-based
prediction tool to help growers determine how much fungicide to
use and when to apply it. The system has helped growers reduce
fungicide use by 50 percent, improving fruit safety for
consumers and increasing profits for farmers.
realizing the potential of agricultural research
With an increasing world population, demand for innovative food and
agricultural products has never been greater. Agricultural, nutrition,
and food scientists are developing more abundant, nutritious food,
creating new biofuel materials, and designing more sustainable
agriculture practices. AFRI research and education programs support the
translation of cutting edge science into solutions for some of the
greatest challenges facing our nation.
Agricultural research directly benefits all sectors of society and
every geographic region of the nation. The food, nutrition, and
agriculture industries rely on Federal funding for basic scientific
research that leads to the development of innovative products that
industry can bring to market, as well as programs that train the next
generation of agricultural researchers. With rising challenges from
foreign competitors and growing demand for agricultural products, AFRI
is significantly underfunded. AFRI's budget has not increased since it
was established in 2008. FASEB recommends a minimum of $335 million for
AFRI in fiscal year 2015 as part of a sustained commitment to
investment in the critical field of agricultural research, with an
ultimate target of the authorized level of $700 million.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer FASEB's support and
recommendations for AFRI.
[This statement was submitted by Meghan McCabe, Legislative Affairs
Analyst, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
On behalf of millions of sportsmen conservationists, livestock
producers, and state and private academic research institutions, we ask
your help in the end-game strategy for controlling zoonotic diseases in
the United States, particularly bovine brucellosis and bovine
tuberculosis. These diseases are transmissible between livestock and
wildlife--and under certain circumstances, humans. Despite nationwide
efforts to eradicate zoonotic diseases in livestock, both bovine
brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis remain active in isolated wildlife
reservoirs in the West and Midwest. To bring this decades-long campaign
to a long-term resolution, we ask the Subcommittee to include language
encouraging the use of competitive grants for zoonotic disease research
under the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Animal
Health and Disease Research Initiative.
The Agricultural Act of 2014 recognized the need for this research
by making the development of improved surveillance and vaccine systems
a priority research area under the Competitive, Special, and Facilities
Research Grant Act. If funded, researchers nationwide using matching
investments and collaboration among state and private research
institutions could compete for grants to address bovine brucellosis and
bovine tuberculosis. Many partnerships have already been built in this
wide network, representing significant non-Federal investment, which
includes recent upgrades in laboratories to higher standards of safety
for handling the bacteria that cause these diseases. The persistence of
these diseases is an obstacle for wildlife conservation and livestock
health. The current strategy of responding to outbreaks by slaughtering
or depopulating infected herds and populations sacrifices economic and
social values. Depopulation as a management tool necessarily involves
the taking of healthy animals along with the sick and deprives
economies and communities of benefits from livestock industry and
wildlife recreation. False-positive detections using current tests are
also a problem, costing ranchers substantial sums out of profit.
Financial pressure on livestock operations is also a risk to
conservation as these businesses keep America's rural lands as open
spaces under good stewardship. When ranches fail and land is developed,
wildlife habitat is lost.
The use of competitive grants under the existing Animal Health and
Disease ResearchInitiative ensures that Federal resources to combat
this animal health problem are used effectively. We seek to focus the
combined efforts of many who are already struggling with the problem
diseases in livestock and wildlife. This approach is designed for clear
accountability of measurable results.
Thank you for your consideration.
[This statement was submitted by Greg Schildwachter, Watershed
Results.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of Agricultural Research
Mister Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to present our statement supporting funding for the USDA's
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and especially for its flagship
research facility, the Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural
Research Center (BARC), in Beltsville Maryland. We strongly recommend
full fiscal-year 2015 funding support for research programs at
Beltsville.
Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center--the
nation's premier agricultural research center that includes the
Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center and the research operations
of the U.S. National Arboretum--has spearheaded technical advances in
American agriculture for over 100 years. Beltsville celebrated 100
years of research leadership and technical advances in 2010. The long
list of landmark research achievements over that time is truly
remarkable. Still at the threshold of its second century, Beltsville
stands unequalled in scientific capability, breadth of agricultural
research portfolio, and concentration of scientific expertise. The
location of BARC in close proximity to many other Federal research
agencies as well as the University of Maryland allows for significant
joint research activities and the leveraging of resources.
Priorities in the President's fiscal year 2015 Budget Request--Now,
Mr. Chairman, we turn to key research areas that were highlighted in
the President's proposed fiscal year 2015 budget. We were pleased to
see that the fiscal year 2015 budget includes increases for crop
breeding and protection; animal breeding and protection; enhanced
environmental stewardship; food safety; and human nutrition. Obviously,
these are areas of great importance to all Americans, and they are
certainly among the highest priorities for agricultural research today.
All of these research areas are strengths of the Beltsville
Agricultural Research Center and they will benefit well from the unique
facilities and scientific expertise at the Center. We encourage you to
seriously consider funding the proposed budget and to ensure that
Beltsville receives the funding that it needs to address these critical
research needs.
In summation, we would highlight these spheres of excellence:
Crop Breeding and Protection: Beltsville scientists have an
extensive record of ongoing research relating to protecting crops from
pests and emerging pathogens. Beltsville's Bee Research Laboratory is
at the forefront of efforts to determine the cause of colony collapse
disorder that is devastating the bee industry that is critical for the
pollination of many crops. Beltsville houses matchless national
biological collections that are indispensable to the well-being of
American agriculture. In addition to the actual collections, Beltsville
scientists are internationally recognized for their expertise and
ability to quickly and properly identify insect pests, fungal
pathogens, bacterial threats, and nematodes. This expertise is crucial
to preventing loss of crops ensuring that invasive threats to American
agriculture are identified before they can enter the country, thus
helping to protect homeland security, and ensuring that American
exports are free of pests and pathogens that could prohibit exports. At
BARC, research on the breeding of crops and plants has led to improved
varieties of vegetables, nursery stock, fruits and even turf grasses.
Animal Breeding and Protection: Beltsville conducts extensive
research on animal production and animal health. The U.S. Poultry
industry depends on Beltsville scientists to develop new and more
effective vaccines and immunological approaches to prevent losses to
flocks. Animal scientists at BARC have been using cutting-edge genomic
approaches to increase the feed efficiency of animals used for food and
to improve disease resistance in farm animals. Many of the emerging
diseases affecting humans are zoonotic in that they arise first in
animals. By understanding these diseases in animals and how they might
be controlled, BARC scientists are helping human as well as animal
health. BARC has worked with the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History
to ensure the continued curation of the National Animal Parasite
collection and with the dairy industry to transfer the technology to
enhance milk yield in dairy cows. Both of these activities allow for
BARC scientists to continue to meet the needs of commodity groups and
producers and to leverage its resources to expand research activities.
Enhanced Environmental Stewardship: BARC scientists are at the
forefront of research aimed at development of climate resilient land,
crop, grazing and livestock production systems. Beltsville became
actively engaged in climate change research long before climate change
became a topic of intense media interest; scientists have been able to
increase our understanding how climate change affects crop production
and the effects of climate change on growth and spread of invasive and
detrimental plants such as weeds. The facilities at BARC to replicate
environmental changes and to model changes in plant production are
truly unique. Since BARC is an actively farmed facility that is close
to an urban center and drains into the Chesapeake Bay, it is
significantly involved in research on agriculture at the ag-urban
interface and for controlling agricultural impacts on the environment.
Food Safety: BARC houses the largest food safety laboratory in the
Agricultural Research Service. It is highly regarded for its research
on improving the safety of animal products by improving pathogen
reduction on the farm. This is a significant issue as this research is
able to reduce the use of antibiotics in agriculture and greatly reduce
the development of antibiotic resistant organisms in the environment
and in humans. Beltsville scientists have been and continue to be
involved in research aimed at keeping pathogens out of our fruits and
vegetables and to develop effective and efficient ways of monitoring
contamination of these important commodities.
Human Nutrition: The Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center
(BHNRC) is the nation's largest, oldest and most comprehensive Federal
human nutrition research center. Unique activities at BHNRC include
conducting the What We Eat in America survey, which is the government's
nutrition monitoring program, and the National Nutrient Databank, which
is the gold standard reference of food nutrient content that is used
throughout the world. These two activities are the basis for food
labels, nutrition education programs, food assistance programs
including SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, school
feeding programs, and government nutrition education programs. Human
feeding studies conducted by BHNRC scientists were the first ever to
demonstrate the harmful effects of trans fats in the human diet and
they have worked with the food industry develop alternatives for their
removal from the food supply.
Food Quality Laboratory: The Laboratory concerned with maintaining
and enhancing fruit and vegetable food quality is to be redirected, but
the research funding is to remain at the Center. We are supportive of
keeping the funding for these projects concerning food quality at the
Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.
You can see that the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center
conducts impactful research in those areas that are a priority in the
President's fiscal year 2015 budget. It is perhaps one of the real
strengths of the Center that research is conducted in each of these
areas thereby allowing for unique multidisciplinary activities that cut
across each of these priorities. It is not uncommon at BARC to see
plant scientists working side by side with animal scientists. The
Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center hired a climate change
scientist over 10 years ago. The research conducted at BARC not only
adds to our scientific knowledge but truly improves the quality of life
for all Americans and significantly impacts American agriculture.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call to your attention an
urgent facilities need that is highlighted in the President's fiscal
year 2015 budget. The Center has aggressively moved to consolidate
space and reduce costs and has been very successful at doing so.
However, these plans require the renovation of a building--Building
307A--that was vacated some years ago in anticipation of a complete
renovation. In the past, Congress approved partial funding for this
renovation, and those monies were retained pending appropriation of the
full amount required for the renovation. Unfortunately, those funds now
have been lost to ARS. Consequently, renovation of this vacant, highly
useful building is on indefinite hold. While we realize that funding is
extremely tight, we affirm that Beltsville urgently needs a renovated
Building 307A for adequate, high quality lab space. Moreover, a
renovated Building 307A would not only yield substantial energy savings
and reduce operating costs, but also would allow Beltsville to move
forward with other long-delayed relocation and consolidation plans. At
a minimum, funds are urgently needed to stabilize this vacant building
from continuing deterioration.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement. Thank you for
consideration and support for the educational, research, and outreach
missions of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.
[This statement was submitted by James D. Anderson, Ph.D.,
President, Friends of Agricultural Research.]
______
Prepared Statement of the International Walking Horse Association
(IWHA)
We submit the following testimony seeking funding for the USDA/
APHIS Horse Protection Program of $893,000 for fiscal year 2015. We
recognize that Congress is focused on the imperative of cutting Federal
spending. But we believe that it should be possible to achieve
meaningful reductions in the overall budget while still addressing
shortfalls in very specific accounts that are vital and have been
seriously underfunded. This $893,000, the same amount provided by the
Senate committee in its fiscal year 2014 bill, is urgently needed to
begin to fulfill the intent of the Horse Protection Act--to eliminate
the cruel practice of soring--by allowing the USDA to strengthen its
enforcement capabilities for this law.
In 1970, Congress passed the Horse Protection Act to end soring,
the intentional infliction of pain to the hooves and legs of a horse to
produce an exaggerated gait, practiced primarily in the Tennessee
Walking Horse show industry.
For example, caustic chemicals--such as mustard oil, diesel fuel,
and kerosene--are painted on the lower front legs of a Tennessee
Walking Horse, then the legs are wrapped for days in plastic wrap and
bandages to ``cook'' the chemicals deep into the horse's flesh. This
makes the horse's legs extremely painful and sensitive, and when
ridden, the horse is fitted with chains that slide up and down the
horse's sore legs, forcing him to produce an exaggerated, high-stepping
gait in the show ring. Additional tactics include inserting various
foreign objects such as metal screws or hard acrylic between a heavy
stacked shoe and the sole of the horse's hoof; pressure shoeing--
cutting a horse's hoof down to the sensitive live tissue to cause
extreme pain every time the horse bears weight on the hoof; and
applying painful chemicals such as salicylic acid to slough off scarred
tissue, in an attempt to remove evidence of soring.
The Horse Protection Act authorizes the USDA to inspect Tennessee
Walking Horses, Racking Horses, and Spotted Saddle Horses--in transport
to and at shows, exhibits, auctions and sales--for signs of soring, and
to pursue penalties against violators. Unfortunately, since its
inception, enforcement of the Act has been plagued by underfunding. As
a result, the USDA has never been able to adequately enforce the Act,
allowing this extreme and deliberate cruelty to persist on a widespread
basis.
To eliminate soring, the goal of the Act, USDA officials must be
present at more shows. However, limited funds allow USDA attendance at
only about 20 percent of more than 500 Tennessee Walking Horse shows.
Thus, the agency set up an industry-run system of certified Horse
Industry Organization (HIO) inspection programs, which are charged with
inspecting horses for signs of soring at the majority of shows. These
groups license examiners known as Designated Qualified Persons (DQPs)
to conduct inspections in a self-regulatory role. To perform this
function, some of these organizations hire industry insiders who have
an obvious stake in preserving the status quo. Statistics clearly show
that when USDA inspectors are in attendance to oversee shows affiliated
with these organizations, the numbers of violations recorded are many
times higher than at shows where industry inspectors alone are
conducting the inspections. Unfortunately, the largest, most popular
HIOs in the industry are the most conflicted, resulting in ongoing,
widespread abuse of horses. By all measures, the overall DQP program as
a whole has been a failure--the only remedy is to abolish the
conflicted industry-run inspection programs charged with self-
regulation and have USDA oversee a legitimate inspection program.
The USDA appears to have attempted to step up its enforcement
efforts in recent years, and has begun to work with the Department of
Justice in prosecuting criminal cases as provided for under the Act. In
2011, a Federal prosecutor sought the first-ever criminal indictments
under the Act and as a result, a well-known, winning trainer in the
Spotted Saddle Horse industry served a prison sentence of over 1 year.
A former Walking Horse Trainers' Association Trainer of the Year and
winner of the Tennessee Walking Horse World Grand Championship, Jackie
McConnell, was indicted in 2012 on 52 counts (18 of them felony) of
violating the Act and pleaded guilty to felony conspiracy to violate
the Act. He was sentenced to 3 years of probation and a $75,000 fine in
Federal court. Another Tennessee trainer, Larry Wheelon, and three of
his employees have been indicted on 19 counts of aggravated animal
cruelty charges under state law in a case flowing from a USDA Office of
Inspector General investigation.
While these are significant actions which should have a deterrent
effect, there are scores of other violators who go undetected and many
cases that go unprosecuted due to a lack of resources. USDA needs
enhanced resources to carry out its responsibilities under this Act, as
Congress, and the public, expects.
In years past, inspections were limited to physical observation and
palpation by the inspector. Protocols for the use of new technologies,
such as thermography and ``sniffer'' devices (gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry (GC/MS) instruments), have been implemented, which can
help inspectors identify soring more effectively and objectively. The
results of USDA's recent GC/MS testing for prohibited foreign
substances used by violators on the legs of horses (either to sore
them, or to mask underlying soring and evade detection by inspectors)
are staggering: 62 percent of samples taken by the USDA at 17 horse
shows in 2013 tested positive for illegal foreign substances, including
soring, masking, and numbing agents. In 2012, 65 percent of samples
tested at 24 horse shows by USDA tested positive for illegal foreign
substances.
Effective though this inspection protocol may be, due to budget
constraints, USDA has been unable to purchase and put enough of this
testing into use in the field, allowing for industry players to
continually evade detection. In 2013, USDA was able to afford to
collect and test samples at only 17 of the industry's largest shows; in
2012, only 24. With increased funding, the USDA could purchase more
equipment and dispatch more inspectors to use it properly, greatly
increasing its ability to enforce the HPA.
Currently, when USDA inspectors arrive at shows affiliated with
some industry organizations, many of the exhibitors load up and leave
to avoid being caught with sored horses. While USDA could stop these
trailers on the way out, agency officials have stated that inspectors
are wary of going outside of their designated inspection area, for fear
of harassment and physical violence from exhibitors. Armed security is
frequently utilized to allow such inspections, at additional expense to
this program. The fact that exhibitors feel they can intimidate
government officials without penalty is a testament to the inherent
shortcomings of the current system.
Lack of a consistent presence by USDA officials at events featuring
Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, and Spotted Saddle Horses has
fostered a cavalier attitude among industry insiders, who have not
stopped their abuse, but have only become more clandestine in their
soring methods. The continued use of soring to gain an advantage in the
show ring has tainted this segment of the horse industry, and creates
an unfair advantage for those who are willing to break the law in
pursuit of victory. Besides the indefensible suffering of the animals
themselves, the continued acceptance of sored horses in the show ring
prevents those with sound horses from competing fairly for prizes,
breeding fees and other financial incentives, while those horse owners
whose horses are sored may unwittingly suffer property damage and be
duped into believing that their now abused, damaged horses are
naturally superior.
The egregious cruelty of soring is not only a concern for horse
industry and animal protection organizations, but also for
veterinarians. In 2008, the American Association of Equine
Practitioners (AAEP) issued a white paper condemning soring, calling it
``one of the most significant welfare issues faced by the equine
industry.'' It called for the abolition of the DQP Program, saying
``the acknowledged conflicts of interest which involve many of them
cannot be reasonably resolved, and these individuals should be excluded
from the regulatory process.'' The AAEP further stated, ``The failure
of the HPA to eliminate the practice of soring can be traced to the
woefully inadequate annual budget . . . allocated to the USDA to
enforce these rules and regulations.''
The USDA Office of Inspector General conducted an audit of the
Horse Protection Program, and issued its final report in September of
2010. The report recommends the abolition of the DQP program, and an
increase in funding for APHIS enforcement of the Horse Protection Act.
The agency concurred with the findings and recommendations in the
report, specifically Recommendation 2: ``Seeking the necessary funding
from Congress to adequately oversee the Horse Protection Program,''
indicating that it would develop a budgeting and staffing plan to phase
in the resources needed to adequately oversee the Horse Protection
Program.
It is unacceptable that more than 40 years after passage of the
Horse Protection Act, the USDA still lacks the resources needed to end
this extreme form of abuse. It is time for Congress to give our public
servants charged with enforcing this Act the support and resources they
want and need to fulfill their duty to protect these horses as
effectively and safely as possible.
We appreciate the opportunity to share our views about this serious
problem, and thank you for your consideration of our request.
[This statement was submitted by Mark Matson, President,
International Walking Horse Association.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Meds & Food for Kids (MFK)
Meds & Food for Kids (MFK) appreciates the opportunity to submit
testimony to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies,
and requests that the Subcommittee fully fund the Local and Regional
Food Aid Procurement Project (LRP) at $80 million for fiscal year 2015,
as authorized in section 3207 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the Farm
Bill) and administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). The LRP is a critical tool for
international development that saves and improves lives by quickly
purchasing necessary food aid locally or regionally, while also
increasing resiliency through the further development of local food
systems.
MFK is a U.S. non-profit organization that manufactures high
quality, peanut-based ready-to-use therapeutic and supplementary foods
in Haiti that are used to treat and prevent malnutrition in young
children. MFK intimately knows the importance of local production and
procurement of food aid, including ready-to-use foods for treating
children with malnutrition, to Haiti's vulnerable populations. MFK has
been fighting malnutrition and poverty, its root cause, in Haiti since
2003. After the earthquake MFK transported all its available stocks to
Port au Prince for use in hospitals, clinics and orphanages. In total
we have saved the lives of over 120,000 in the last 10 years. Most of
those children were treated after we scaled up in 2012, by building a
new $3.2 million state-of-the-art factory in Cap Haitien, increasing
our annual production capacity from 80 to 800 metric tons (MT). We made
this urgent investment because every life saved, every body healed;
every brain protected, is an investment in Haiti's future. MFK believes
that Haiti, and countries like it, deserve a bright future.
MFK is working not only to rescue children from malnutrition, but
create a sustainable solution to the problem of food insecurity. We do
this by igniting economic development and building local technical
capacity. This longer-term mission just isn't possible without funding
for local and regional food aid procurement. We must move beyond rescue
to establish sustainable, locally-based solutions to achieve real and
lasting change. To this end, MFK employs 48 Haitian people in the
production of our peanut-based RUFs. MFK has also trained over 1,120
small-scale peanut farmers and supplied them with a reliable customer
for their peanuts. MFK is working with Clinton Giustra Foundation to
create Haitian agricultural ``middle men'' to supply inputs to farmers.
MFK will buy 50 MT of Haitian peanuts this year and has invested more
than $200,000 in local procurement of peanuts since 2008. In
complement, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has
donated to MFK over $100,000 of peanut equipment and funding for farmer
training.
With the help of development partners like USAID and USDA, we are
building sustainable supply chains, and creating expertise in food
safety and manufacturing. To date, MFK has passed three international
food safety audits, the only entity in Haiti to have done so. MFK also
recently completed a $1 million USDA McGovern Dole Micronutrient
Fortified Food Aid Pilot Project (MFFAPP) to develop and test a
nutritious school snack in Haiti. Making local and regional procurement
funds available to further projects like this one would only add value
to the McGovern Dole investment. MFK is an example of a success story
in helping to build resilience and sustainable food systems in Haiti.
By supporting local and regional food and agricultural supply chains
through the LRP, we will see more success stories in the future.
From our experience, the addition of local and regional procurement
of food to the U.S. Government's aid toolbox allows the policy and
programming flexibility necessary to best meet the needs of vulnerable
populations. It also helps to support and protect local farmers and
food manufacturers, allowing for longer term economic development. For
this reason, we support full funding of the Local and Regional Food Aid
Procurement Project along with the development of a strategy that will
be beneficial to both the world's most vulnerable populations and the
American tax-payers.
Thank you for providing MFK the opportunity to submit testimony
regarding the Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Project. Please
do not hesitate to contact me if the Subcommittee has any questions or
would like further information.
[This statement was submitted by Dr. Patricia Wolff, Executive
Director, Meds & Foods for Kids.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Affordable Housing Management
Association (NAHMA)
Thank you, Chairman Pryor and Ranking Member Blunt for the
opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the National
Affordable Housing Management Association (NAHMA). My testimony
concerns the fiscal year 2015 budget for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), and in particular, funding for the USDA-Rural
Development (RD) multifamily housing programs. The majority of my
testimony will discuss RD's requested funding and new legislative
authorities for its Section 521 Rural Rental Assistance (RA) Program.
about nahma
NAHMA members manage and provide quality affordable housing to more
than two million Americans with very low to moderate incomes. Our
membership consists of presidents and executives of property management
companies, owners of affordable rental housing, public agencies and
national organizations involved in affordable housing, and providers of
supplies and services to the affordable housing industry. In addition,
NAHMA serves as the national voice in Washington for 19 regional, state
and local affordable housing management associations (AHMAs)
nationwide.
funding for rd multifamily housing programs
Section 521 Rural Rental Assistance: The Section 521 Rural Rental
Assistance (RA) program is project-based rental assistance administered
by USDA-RD. It is often used in conjunction with Section 515 housing or
farm labor housing to pay apartment owners the difference between
tenants' contributions (30 percent of their income) and the monthly
rental rate.
For fiscal year 2015, USDA requests $1.089 billion for Section 521
Rural Rental Assistance. RD believes this request is sufficient to
accommodate renewals. NAHMA urges the Subcommittee to review this
request thoroughly, as it is based on assumptions for new legislative
authorities that affect the level of necessary funding. NAHMA firmly
believes that appropriations for this program must be sufficient to
provide 12 months of funding for all contracts.
This year, RD also requests legislative changes which would:
--Remove the requirement to fund RA contracts for a 1 year period,
and replace it with language to fund contracts ``up to 1
year'';
--Eliminate the automatic renewal of rental assistance contracts that
occur within the 12-month contract period; and
--Provide that ``rental assistance will be renewed at the discretion
of the Secretary.''
RD believes these changes will provide greater predictability in
the RA budget, as well as the necessary flexibility to prioritize RA
contract renewals during times of funding uncertainty (such as
continuing resolutions or under sequestration). NAHMA is concerned that
the specific language proposed is too broad, and we recommend that it
be revised to more closely reflect its stated intent.
After the RA shortfall which resulted from fiscal year 2013
sequestration, it is clear that RHS needs some degree of flexibility in
its contract renewal procedures during times of extraordinary budget
uncertainty. That said, the flexibility must not absolve the agency of
its financial obligations to owners for payment of RA during the term
of the contract, nor should it be used as a budget gimmick to request
less appropriations than are necessary to provide 12 months of contract
funding at the time of renewal.
Likewise, NAHMA respectfully suggests that an advanced
appropriation would offer a more straightforward mechanism to ensure RD
has the necessary funding for contract renewals when the agency must
operate under a continuing resolution. Advanced appropriations have
been used successfully for several years to renew HUD's Project-Based
Section 8 and Housing Choice Voucher contracts during the first quarter
of the fiscal year when continuing resolutions are in place.
In section 725 of USDA's proposed general provisions, the Agency
also requests authority to access the same interagency databases used
for income verification by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). RD is especially interested in using this authority
to reduce improper payments in its RA program. NAHMA supports this
request in concept. If Congress provides such authority, NAHMA
recommends that USDA-RD implement it by seeking access to HUD's
Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) System for RHS staff, as well as
for authorized property owners and managers. EIV obtains monthly Social
Security and Supplemental Security Income benefits data from the Social
Security Administration, and monthly employer new hires (W-4),
quarterly wage for Federal and non-Federal employees, and quarterly
unemployment data from the Department of Health and Human Services'
National Directory of New Hires (NDNH). It would seem more efficient
for RD to use the EIV system for income verification than to create an
entirely new system.
Section 515: Section 515 Direct Rural Rental Housing Loans are
competitive mortgage loans which finance affordable multifamily rental
housing for low-income families, the elderly and persons with
disabilities in rural America. The 2015 budget request proposes $28.432
million for the Section 515 direct loan program. NAHMA supports funding
at a level of at least $28.432 million.
Section 538: The Section 538 Multifamily Loan Guarantee program
provides loan guarantees which encourage construction, acquisition, or
rehabilitation of rural multifamily housing for low-income residents.
NAHMA supports RD's request of $150 million for this program.
Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization (MRP) Program: The
Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program funds tenant protection
vouchers, property rehabilitation and preservation demonstration
programs. RD requests $28 million for this program. Of this total
funding, $8 million would be directed to the Rural Housing Voucher
Program, which provides a rental subsidy to any low-income household
(including those not receiving rental assistance) residing in a
property financed with a Section 515 loan which has been prepaid after
September 30, 2005. Likewise, $20 million is proposed for the
demonstration program to preserve and recapitalize aging rural
multifamily rental properties. NAHMA supports funding for MRP program
at a level of at least $28 million. We are, however, concerned about
the proposed reduction in voucher funding from nearly $12.58 million in
the fiscal year 2014 Omnibus Appropriations Act to $8 million in RD's
fiscal year 2015 budget request. We urge the Subcommittee to carefully
consider whether $8 million will be sufficient to meet the demand for
these Rural Housing Vouchers in fiscal year 2015.
conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this testimony. I
look forward to working with the Subcommittee to ensure that USDA-RD's
multifamily housing programs are fully funded and properly
administered.
[This statement was submitted by Kris Cook, CAE, Executive
Director, National Affordable Housing Management Association.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Animal Health Laboratory Network
I am writing to urge your support for the inclusion of the National
Animal Health Laboratory Network in the fiscal year 2015 Agriculture
Appropriations Bill. The NAHLN was authorized in the recently passed
Farm Bill (Section. 12105). Serving as our nation's most vital early
warning system for emerging and foreign animal diseases, we are urging
the members of the Appropriation Committee to fund the NAHLN at $15
million for fiscal year 2015.
The NAHLN was developed in response to the Public Health Security
and BioTerrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, and the
Homeland Security Presidential Directive-9 (HSPD-9) of 2004 to
``develop nationwide laboratory networks for food, veterinary, plant
health and water quality that integrate existing Federal and State
laboratory resources, are interconnected, and utilize standardized
diagnostic protocols and procedures''.
During the past 12 years the NAHLN, composed of Federal,
university, and state veterinary diagnostic laboratories, has
established the framework of a surveillance and emergency response
system (not research) that provides critical and ongoing resources for
laboratory testing, surveillance, information management, quality
assurance and the development and validation of new tests.
Funding of NAHLN at $15 million would result in improved compliance
with HSPD-9 by: 1) expanding surveillance and surge capacity of the
NAHLN by increasing the number and level of participating state
laboratories; 2) additional development of the infrastructure for
electronic transmission of data between sample collectors, laboratories
and state and Federal databases; and 3) increasing efficiency and
effectiveness of laboratory personnel training and employment both
regionally and nationwide. Federal funding for the NAHLN at $15 million
would be leveraged over six times by direct state appropriations. A
survey of 34 NAHLN laboratories conducted by the American Association
of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians revealed direct state
appropriations of $100 million to NAHLN laboratories toward total
laboratory operation expenses of $186 million.
The NAHLN enables laboratories to test for economically devastating
diseases such as mad cow disease, foot-and-mouth disease, avian and
swine influenza, and classical swine fever. Without the NAHLN and the
early disease detection it provides, an outbreak of Foot and Mouth
Disease (FMD) could cost US agriculture an estimated $128 billion. This
includes decreased revenues for corn and soybean of $44 billion and
$24.9 billion, respectively. This loss translates into roughly 154,000
jobs over the course of the outbreak.
An August 2011 report from the GAO and a report from the Commission
on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation and
Terrorism both gave the nation a failing gradefor its ability to
respond to and recover from a biological attack, natural disaster or
animal disease event as required by HSPD-9. In order for the nation to
adequately respond to, and recover from, a biological attack; the NAHLN
needs $15 million to ensure such a threat would be quarantined in a
timely manner.
Wisconsin has benefited from the Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic
Laboratory being a NAHLN laboratory on several occasions. Having the
ability to rapidly deliver foreign animal disease diagnostic samples to
the local laboratory has provided test results to State Animal Health
Officials hours or days before the same reports were received from the
National Veterinary Services Laboratory due to the time it takes to
ship samples. This early reporting has allowed the state to release
quarantines which were impacting commerce at slaughter facilities or
livestock production sites.
Thank you for your leadership on this vital issue to the
agriculture industry and consideration of this funding in the fiscal
year 15 Agriculture Appropriations Bill.
[This statement was submitted by Ben Brancel, Secretary, Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Farmers Union
On behalf of the family farmer and rancher members of National
Farmers Union (NFU), thank you for the opportunity to present funding
requests for fiscal year 2015. As a general farm organization, NFU has
a broad array of interests in the agricultural appropriations process.
This letter enumerates a few of the highest priorities for our members.
Additionally, the recent passage of the 2014 Farm Bill deserves the
attention of the subcommittee. I ask that programs that were granted
discretionary funding through the farm bill receive their full
appropriations, and that the subcommittee not reduce other program
funding through changes in mandatory programs.
REQUEST: No legislative riders or targeted funding reductions to limit
or restrict the enforcement, legal defense or study of Country-
of-Origin Labeling (COOL).
The 2008 Farm Bill requires retailers to notify customers through
labeling of the source of nearly all muscle cuts and ground meat, along
with fish, fruits, vegetables, nuts and a variety of other generally
unprocessed products. As of 2013, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) enacted rules that require the labeling of production steps--for
example, ``Born, Raised, and Harvested in the U.S.''--as directed by a
World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute. Another WTO proceeding is
currently underway to review the new COOL regulations' compliance with
trade agreements. A lawsuit is pending in U.S. court regarding
implementation of the new labels and initial attempts to enjoin the new
COOL requirements were defeated. Additionally, the 2014 Farm Bill
requires a study on the economic impact of COOL.
NFU opposes any funding cuts or legislative riders that would
circumvent enforcement, implementation, legal defense or study of COOL.
Studies have found that more than 90 percent of consumers support COOL.
Any threats of retaliation from Canada and Mexico are extremely
premature, as WTO appeals are slow-moving and typically last for years.
REQUEST: No legislative riders to limit or restrict the USDA's
rulemaking and enforcement authority under the Packers and
Stockyards Act of 1921.
Because of appropriations riders in the last 3 years, USDA has not
been allowed to write rules that would provide greater fairness for
livestock sellers and poultry growers in the agriculture marketplace,
as directed by the 2008 Farm Bill. This includes prohibiting deceptive
or fraudulent buying practices and permitting farmers and ranchers to
seek protection under the Packers and Stockyards Act if they have been
harmed by unfair trade practices.
While the last three legislative riders on GIPSA have varied, they
each have significantly undermined important protections for livestock
and poultry ranchers and growers. These provisions must not be
prevented; thus, NFU strongly urges the Subcommittee to reject any
legislative riders that would undermine GIPSA's authority and ignore
congressional intent.
REQUEST: Funding for the Food and Drug Administration to implement the
Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and to study its economic
impacts on farmers.
NFU asks that the FDA be adequately funded at the president's
request level for fiscal year 2015 with $253 million to be used for
implementation of FSMA. There are many areas of possible improvement
within the proposed FSMA rules, but it is imperative that the process
be provided resources in order to be effective. Of particular
importance is funding to provide food safety training to family farmers
and small processors. The president's request to spend $2.5 million on
that initiative is a low amount but a good start to prepare our members
to work well within the upcoming FSMA rules.
Additionally, I ask that no action be taken during the
appropriations process that would derail or detract from FDA's study of
the economic impacts of FSMA on farmers, as mandated by the 2014 Farm
Bill.
REQUEST: Report language on public cultivar development through the
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI).
The 2008 Farm Bill created the Agriculture and Food Research
Initiative (AFRI), which called for AFRI to make ``conventional'' plant
and animal breeding a priority for research grants. Implementation of
these directives has been slow. NFU asks that the fiscal year 2015
appropriations bill include report language that reiterates the need to
prioritize funding for classical plant and animal breeding within the
AFRI process.
REQUEST: Provide $25.9 million to the Genetic Improvement and
Translational Breeding Initiative, along with report language
directing funds to the development and release of regionally
adapted, public cultivars.
The administration's fiscal year 2015 budget requests $25.9 million
for a new Genetic Improvement and Translational Breeding Initiative to
be administered by the Agricultural Research Service. Given the very
substantial private and public investments in genomics and the lack of
funding for classical breeding for public cultivar development, clear
language ought to be included to direct ARS to focus all of the funding
provided for this initiative on the development and release of
regionally adapted, publicly held, cultivars to benefit farmers and
ranchers across the country.
REQUEST: Fully fund farm bill energy title programs at discretionary
funding levels and do not reduce program funding through
changes in mandatory programs. Also, allow 2014 Biomass Crop
Assistance Program (BCAP) funds to carry over into 2015 if they
are not expended.
The 2014 Farm Bill makes substantial investments in existing energy
programs such as the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), Biomass
Crop Assistance Program (BCAP), and Biorefinery Assistance Program
(BAP). NFU asks that the subcommittee not reduce any of the funds
allocated to these programs. In addition, because USDA may not expend
all funds for BCAP in 2014, NFU asks that language be inserted allowing
for unexpended 2014 BCAP funds to be carried over into 2015.
REQUEST: Provide $10 million for competitive grants and formula-based
funding for animal health and disease research.
Public investment in animal science has slipped in recent years,
especially in comparison to the economic impact of animal agriculture.
By 2050, global meat consumption is expected to increase by 73 percent,
dairy production by 57 percent, and per capita egg consumption in
developing countries is projected to rise by almost 40 percent. Animal
agriculture has a clear impact on rural America, as livestock and
poultry sales account for 40 percent of all U.S. farm income.
The 2014 Farm Bill revitalized the structure of a public funding
opportunity for animal science. I ask that $10 million be made
available to establish the new competitive grants program on sound
financial footing.
Thank you for your consideration of these requests.
[This statement was submitted by Roger Johnson, President, National
Farmers Union.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
Thank you for the opportunity to present our fiscal year 2015
funding requests. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a
national alliance of over 100 organizations that advocates for policies
that support the sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and
rural communities. Our USDA requests are as follows, in the order they
appear in the appropriations bill:
departmental administration
Office of Advocacy and Outreach. The Office of Advocacy and
Outreach coordinates policy and outreach in three vital areas--small
and beginning, socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmers. We urge
that $1.4 million be provided for the OA&O, as requested by USDA.
Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and
Ranchers and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers. We urge you to provide $10
million in discretionary funding and no limitation in mandatory program
spending to restore total program funding to its historical level in
order to meet the increased demand for outreach and technical
assistance by military veteran farmers, and other historically
underserved producers.
agriculture research service
New Priority Research Initiative. We urge you to support the
reallocation of $25.9 million for a new Genetic Improvement and
Translational Breeding Initiative, as proposed by the Administration,
provided that report language directs ARS to use the funding to advance
classical breeding research and germplasm infrastructure to protect
agricultural genetic diversity and address long-term challenges to
agriculture such as climate change and global food security.
national institute of food and agriculture
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. We urge you
to fund this innovative competitive grants program at $30 million. The
fiscal year 15 Budget Request once again proposes to combine research,
education, and extension into a single line item. We do not oppose
consolidation, so long as funding is increased to cover all functions
outlined in statute, including Federal-state matching grants (7 U.S.C.
5813). To that effect, we urge the reiteration of the fiscal year 14
Senate report language (113-46) clarifying that ``all three activities
authorized in Subtitle B of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and
Trade Act of 1990 are vital to the success of the SARE program, and the
Committee directs the Department to ensure that each activity remain
intact in thefuture.'' SARE has helped turn farmer-driven research,
education, and extension into profitable and environmentally sound
practices for over 25 years. At $30 million, SARE would be at just half
its authorized level, half the level recommended by the National
Academy of Sciences, and nearly a quarter of the authorized level if
that level were updated to 2014 dollars. There is no other REE
competitive grant program that has a bigger bang for the buck.
Organic Transitions Integrated Research Program. We request $5
million to invest in innovative organic research with strong farmer
delivery mechanisms built in. This level of funding is critical to help
keep organics from falling further behind in its fair share of the
research budget.
Food Safety Outreach Program. We request $5 million to help small
and mid-size farms and small processing facilities comply with new
proposed food safety regulations. FDA is in the process of proposing
new, expansive food safety regulations for farmers and food processors
under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). This FSMA-authorized
Food Safety Training Program will provide farmers with the training
they need to implement and comply with new food safety rules. We are
thrilled USDA has requested funding to begin this program, but believe
their request of $2.5 million is insufficient and therefore urge you to
launch this urgently needed program at $5 million to ensure that
multiple regions of the country can benefit rather than just a single
region.
agricultural marketing service
Federal-State Market Improvement Program. FSMIP provides matching
funds to state departments of agriculture to help grantees conduct
research and create innovations to increase new markets for farmers. We
request $1.363 million, the same as fiscal year 2014 funding.
Organic Production and Market Data Initiatives. As the organic
industry surpasses $31 billion a year in sales, organic market
reporting is vital to creating fair risk management tools and
collecting adequate data on organic markets. We request $0.3 million
for AMS to continue and enhance reporting on organic production,
marketing, and pricing data. We also support ongoing organic data
collection and analysis through NASS and ERS.
Local Food Data Collection and Analysis. Information concerning
state and regional food needs is not readily available to food system
developers and investors who need to gain a better understanding of the
opportunities and challenges that exist for agricultural food systems
across the country. We support the President's request of $2.6 million
for AMS to partner with Federal and state agencies, Land-Grant
Universities, Regional Planning Commissions, and other entities to
conduct 6 to 10 state local and regional food system assessments. We
would also encourage the Committee to include report language directing
AMS to incorporate data collection and assessments of market price
information for direct and intermediated local and regional food
markets.
farm service agency
Direct Farm Ownership Loans, Direct Operating Loans, and Individual
Development Accounts. Direct loans provide capital for beginning
farmers and others not served by commercial credit. This is critical in
light of the increasing age of farmers and the land access challenges
faced by beginning farmers. Similarly, the Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Individual Development Account (IDA) program, authorized by the 2008
and 2014 Farm Bills, will enable limited-resource beginning farmers and
ranchers to save for asset-building purchases, including farmland,
equipment, breeding stock, or similar expenditures.
Through the IDA program, FSA will offer competitive grants, with a
50 percent local match required, and financial management training as
the core component of the program. We support the President's fiscal
year 15 Budget Request for program levels of $1.5 billion for Direct
Farm Ownership loans, $1.252 billion for Direct Operating Loans, and
$2.5 million for the IDA program. We also request an additional $4
million in ACIF administrative expenses \1\ specifically to allow FSA
to provide intermediary technical assistance and loan delivery services
to new microloan borrowers. This combined package will serve new,
beginning, and veteran farmers well, and at a reduction in the actual
appropriated amounts relative to fiscal year 14--$46 million in budget
authority and approximately$51 million in outlays, a net reduction in
actual appropriations of $24 million and approximately $16 million,
respectively, according to OMB's figures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account'' on
page 104 of the President's Budget Appendix
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
natural resources conservation service
Conservation Technical Assistance. CTA, a subset of Conservation
Operations, helps farmers develop and implement conservation plans to
conserve resources on their farms. NRCS also uses CTA funds to assess
conservation practices and systems, and to collect, analyze, and
disseminate data on the condition of the nation's natural resources. We
urge you to provide no less than $717 million for CTA, as requested in
the President's fiscal year 15 budget request.
rural business and cooperative service
Value-Added Producer Grants. VAPG offers grants to farmers and
ranchers developing farm- and food-related businesses that boost farm
income and create jobs in rural America. VAPG encourages the kind of
entrepreneurship that enables rural communities to grow economically.
Growing interest in local and regional foods means greater need for
regional supply chains and enterprises that aggregate local production,
exactly the kind of rural development strategy VAPG is designed to
support. We request no changes in mandatory program spending as well as
$15 million in discretionary funding for VAPG, the same level as
included in the final fiscal year 14 bill.
Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program. RMAP provides business
training, technical assistance, and microloans to owner-operated
businesses with up to ten employees. It is specifically targeted at
very small business development, the leading job creator in rural
communities. The 2014 Farm Bill renews a modest investment of $3
million per year in direct farm bill spending for RMAP loans and
grants. The President's fiscal year 15 Budget Request includes $3.3
million in discretionary funding for RMAP loans, as well as no changes
in mandatory program spending. For a second year in a row, the Budget
Request recommends that Congress combine the RMAP grant component with
several other rural development programs. Congress considered this
proposal during the fiscal year 14 appropriations process and during
farm bill proceedings, and in both cases, wisely rejected the
consolidation proposal. We support the President's fiscal year 15
Budget Request of no changes in mandatory program spending, as well as
$3.3 million in discretionary funding; however, we urge that this
discretionary funding be provided for the cost of loans and grants.
This level of appropriation combined with the new farm bill funding
will result in over $40 million in new microloans plus expanded
entrepreneurial development training, an incredibly smart investment.
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas. The ATTRA program,
also known as the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service
and reauthorized by the 2014 Farm Bill, provides critical support to
farmers, Extension agents, and conservation and energy specialists
throughout the country. We urge $2.5 million for ATTRA for fiscal year
2015.
Rural Cooperative Development Grants. RCDG invests in rural
development by helping individuals start or expand cooperatives. We
oppose the Administration's proposal to consolidate RCDG into a Rural
Business and Cooperative Grants program. We request $9.1 million for
RCDG, including $3 million for centers targeting socially disadvantaged
producers.
general provisions
Repeated annual cuts to the Conservation Stewardship Program,
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and other farm bill
conservation programs have created enormous backlogs of applications
among highly qualified producers and made it difficult for farmers to
maintain healthy soil, protect water, and mitigate and adapt to the
impacts of drought. We strongly oppose changes in mandatory program
spending to these critical conservation programs.
Finally, we oppose the inclusion of any policy riders that limit
implementation and enforcement of the Packers & Stockyards Act.
Limiting farmers' free speech rights to consult with Members of
Congress and limiting USDA's ability to protect market transparency has
no rightful place in the appropriations bill or any other legislation.
[This statement was submitted by Juli Obudzinski, NSAC Senior
Policy Specialist.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society
Ms. Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to provide testimony regarding funding of critically
important Federal programs that impact those affected by multiple
sclerosis. We urge the Subcommittee to provide $3.784 billion in
discretionary spending for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an unpredictable, often disabling
disease of the central nervous system that interrupts the flow of
information within the brain, and between the brain and body. Symptoms
range from numbness and tingling to blindness and paralysis. The
progress, severity, and specific symptoms of MS in any one person
cannot yet be predicted. Most people with MS are diagnosed between the
ages of 20 and 50, with at least two to three times more women than men
being diagnosed with the disease.
The National MS Society sees itself as a partner to the government
in many critical areas. For instance in fiscal year 2013, we dedicated
approximately $48 million in MS research through funds generated
through the Society's fundraising efforts. While we're here to advocate
for Federal funding, we do it as an organization that commits tens of
millions of dollars each year to similar or complementary efforts as
those being funded by the Federal government, including partnerships
with the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
administration
The FDA is the United States' pre-eminent public health agency. Its
role as the regulator of the country's pharmaceutical industry provides
invaluable support and encourages vital progress for people living with
MS and other diseases. In its capacity as the industry's regulator, the
FDA ensures that drugs and medical devices are safe and effective for
public use and provides consumers with confidence in new technologies.
Because of the tremendous impact the FDA has on the development and
availability of drugs and devices for individuals with disabilities,
the National MS Society requests that Congress provide $2.784 billion
in discretionary appropriations. This funding will allow FDA to
complete its current mandates, which include developing a biosimilar
approval pathway and appropriately implementing the Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) of 2012.
Advancements in medical technology and medical breakthroughs play a
pivotal role in decreasing the societal costs of disease and
disability. The FDA is responsible for approving drugs for the market
and in this capacity has the ability to keep healthcare costs down.
Each dollar invested in the life-science research regulated by the FDA
has the potential to save upwards of $10 in health gains. Breakthroughs
in medications and devices can reduce the potential costs of disease
and disability in Medicare and Medicaid and can help support the
healthier, more productive lives of people living with chronic diseases
and disabilities, like MS.
The approval of low-cost generic drugs saved the healthcare system
$140 billion in 2010 and nearly $1 trillion over the past decade.
However, recent funding constraints have resulted in a 2 year backlog
of generic drug approval applications and could potentially cost the
Federal government and patients billions of dollars in the coming
years. Similarly, FDA was tasked with creating a biosimilars approval
pathway in 2010, which still needs to be finalized. This pathway is
expected to allow a cheaper alternative for some very expensive
biologic medications. The potential for these cost-saving medical
breakthroughs and overall healthcare savings relies on a vibrant
industry and an adequately funded FDA.
Entire industries are working to enhance the lives of Americans
with new medical devices and pharmaceuticals with tens of billions of
dollars being spent annually by the NIH and industry in pursuit of new
breakthroughs. The FDA has a comparatively small budget yet is charged
with ensuring the safety and efficacy of these new products.
conclusion
The National MS Society thanks the Committee for the opportunity to
provide written testimony and our recommendations for fiscal year 2015
appropriations. The agencies and programs we have discussed are of
vital importance to people living with MS and we look forward to
continuing to working with the Committee to help move us closer to a
world free of MS. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any
questions.
[This statement was submitted by Ted Thompson, Vice President of
Federal Government Relations, National MS Society.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Federation
On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), the nation's
largest conservation advocacy and education organization, and our more
than four million members and supporters, we thank the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture for the opportunity to
provide fiscal year 2015 funding recommendations for the Department of
Agriculture. We urge the Subcommittee to oppose all cuts to mandatory
agricultural conservation programs in the fiscal year 2015 agriculture
appropriations legislation.
After several years of negotiation, Congress recently passed
Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act (Public Law 113-79) with broad
bipartisan support. This recently passed Farm Bill includes much needed
funding for conservation priorities, and it is critical that Congress
ensure that all of this allocated funding, as signed into law, can be
spent as Congress intended.
Farm Bill Conservation programs--including the Conservation Reserve
Program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Regional
Conservation Partnership Program, Agricultural Conservation Easement
Program, Conservation Stewardship Program, and Voluntary Public Access
Program--have been disproportionately cut in recent appropriations
cycles and in this last farm bill.
From fiscal year 2003-2012, Changes in Mandatory Program Spending
(CHIMPS) for farm bill conservation programs have increased steadily,
threatening to undermine our most critical conservation programs.
According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), total CHIMPS to
mandatory agricultural programs from fiscal year 2003-2010 equaled $7.5
billion.\1\ These cuts increased to over $9 billion in fiscal year
2012. The Conservation Title of the Farm Bill has been unduly targeted,
accounting for over 50 percent of cuts to mandatory agricultural
programs from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2010 and 83 percent of
all Farm Bill CHIMPS from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2010.\2\
Since the enactment of the 2002 Farm Bill, appropriators have taken
roughly $4.4 billion from Farm Bill mandatory conservation spending.\3\
On top of this, conservation programs were cut by an additional $6
billion in the latest Farm Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Jim Monke and Megan Stubbs, Reductions in Mandatory Agriculture
Program Spending, CRS Report for Congress (Congressional Research
Service, May 19, 2010), http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/
R41245.pdf.
\2\ Monke and Stubbs, Reductions in Mandatory Agriculture Program
Spending. National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, comparison of
budget authority to appropriations bills. Note: does not include
rescissions.
\3\ National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, comparison of
budget authority to appropriations bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With increased pressures on working lands to produce food, fuel,
and fiber for our nation and the world, farm bill conservation programs
critically important now more than ever. These conservation programs
are crucial to the health and viability of agriculture and rural
America. They help farmers, ranchers and foresters to voluntarily
address their key resource concerns and assist them in complying with
local, state, and Federal regulations. They deliver demonstrated
environmental benefits including clean air, healthy soil, clean water,
and abundant habitat for wildlife. And they bring important economic
benefits and jobs to rural areas, including increased revenues from
hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities. The demand for
enrollment in these programs routinely exceeds the funds available,
even without any cuts.
Mandatory funding levels for farm bill programs were just agreed
upon by Congress during the Farm Bill reauthorization process; it is
unacceptable to continue to slash these programs yearly during the
appropriations process and to continue to disproportionately target
farm bill conservation programs. We ask the Appropriations Committees
to recognize the importance of agricultural conservation programs by
rejecting cuts to mandatory Farm Bill conservation programs and
allowing these programs to receive the full allocation as set by the
Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act (Public Law 113-79).
[This statement was submitted by Aviva Glaser, Senior Agriculture
Policy Specialist, National Wildlife Federation.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC)
The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) strongly supports the
budget for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and we are very excited about the
new Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) in the recently
passed 2014 Farm Bill. However, because the RCPP combines the
authorities of several existing programs, clarification is needed on
how some of the provisions will be implemented. Specifically, we
request detail on how the new RCPP will cover existing multi-year
agreements funded under the Agricultural Water Enhancement Program
(AWEP) or Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI). OWRC
also requests that the Columbia River Basin and Klamath River Basin be
considered for inclusion in the Critical Conservation Areas (CCAs).
Furthermore, it is crucial that the RCPP has adequate resources to
leverage partnerships and tackle the complex natural resources
conservation issues facing the nation. Lastly, we are strongly
supportive of coordinated Federal agency watershed planning and funding
for the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program.
OWRC was established in 1912 as a trade association to support the
protection of water rights and promote the wise stewardship of water
resources statewide. OWRC members are local governmental entities,
which include irrigation districts, water control districts, drainage
districts, water improvement districts, and other agricultural water
suppliers that deliver water to roughly 1/3 of all irrigated land in
Oregon. These water stewards operate complex water management systems,
including water supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and hydropower
production.
clarification of rcpp provisions
OWRC is requesting that funding for the NRCS RCPP be clarified to
ensure that projects with existing AWEP and CCPI agreements are
eligible for funding. OWRC has members with multi-year agreements with
NRCS under AWEP and/or CCPI and they are concerned that the remainder
of those years may not be funded. This concern is based on remarks made
by USDA officials in Washington DC stating that AWEP and CCPI ``went
away'' with the new Farm Bill. As OWRC and its national partners
understand the 2014 Farm Bill, it was the intent to consolidate the
authorities and maximize the benefits of AWEP and CCPI, not to
eliminate these valuable programs. Our organization is hopeful that
clarification will be provided so that NRCS can merge the existing
agreements into the new RCCP program in a seamless manner. It is in the
best interest of those holding current multi-year agreements that this
is done as quickly as possible so that they can continue with these
beneficial long-term projects that leverage the investments of multiple
state and Federal partners.
OWRC also strongly supports the additional 7 percent (7 percent) of
funding on top of the $100 million that is to be transferred from AWEP
and other related conservation programs that are being combined into
the RCPP. It is important to note that we are concerned about
implications for program expenditures since the April 1st deadline
referenced in Section 2401 for any uncommitted funds returning to each
covered program has now passed. Ideally, solicitations for RCPP
projects should be issued between Oct-Dec 2014 in order to obligate
funds in a timely fashion to meet the March 31st commitment date.
Additionally, as the Secretary of Agriculture considers
recommendations regarding the new Critical Conservation Areas (CCAs)
under the 2014 Farm Bill, OWRC requests that the Columbia Basin and the
Klamath Basin be considered for inclusion as CCAs. Both Basins are
facing significant natural resources challenges, span multiple states,
and would be excellent candidates to more efficiently promote soil,
water and habitat conservation programs on a regional level. The
Columbia Basin, which covers parts of seven states and is the fourth
largest watershed in the nation, continues to be one of the nation's
largest environmental challenges as it wrestles with implementing
recovery efforts under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) while balancing
other diverse resource needs. The Klamath Basin, which covers parts of
Oregon and California, is also facing a complex set of ESA issues that
have been further compounded by a devastating drought that has dire
impacts for the both agricultural and environmental resources. NRCS
funding and participation are an essential part of the cooperative
conservation efforts for addressing the complex ESA needs in both of
these basins.
rcpp needs
Federal support of water conservation activities funded through
NRCS programs, including the RCPP is essential to the conservation of
our natural resources and critical to protecting our food, energy and
water supply. Financial assistance has diminished in recent years and
there is a backlog of unmet need. We worry that a further decline of
funding for fiscal year 2015 will severely impact districts and other
agricultural water suppliers. For example, in 2013, Oregon requested
$24.7 million in financial assistance for NRCS funding, but received
approximately $20 million. Because of the large unmet need, we are
strongly supportive of providing allocations for fiscal year 2014 year
to meet state requests that have been unfunded in recent years.
While we recognize that the Administration has increased funding
for some of the NRCS programs, the need for additional financial
assistance with conservation projects still far outweighs the budget.
NRCS programs are essential to irrigation districts in developing and
implementing conservation projects that benefit not only the individual
farmers they serve but also the entire watershed and community as a
whole. Furthermore, conservation projects also benefit the economy
through job creation and ensuring the future viability of American
agriculture.
RCPP helps fill a funding void for multi-partner conservation
projects. Often large conservation projects do not include individual
on-farm projects which limits the effectiveness of the project. RCPP
allow farmers to pool together and leverage the dollars invested in the
off-farm project with the addition of EQIP on-farm projects. And as
previously mentioned, due to the large number of successful project
applications for AWEP, USDA should continue to fund existing AWEP
projects within the new RCPP program to finish out existing multiyear
projects. It is important that the funding for these projects not be
interrupted so that they may be completed. However, it is equally
important to have funding available for new eligible RCPP projects that
simultaneously benefit the environment and economy.
rcpp benefits
OWRC strongly supports the new RCPP, which we see as a critical
tool for districts and other agricultural water suppliers in developing
and implementing water and energy conservation projects in Oregon. In
the past AWEP has been highly successful in developing cooperative
approaches on a basin-wide scale, and historically, the CCPI
partnerships in the past allowed Federal, State and Local interests to
address ESA and Clean Water Act (CWA) issues in watershed basins and
sub basins.
We are hopeful the RCPP will continue to allow districts and other
agricultural water suppliers to partner with farmers to address
regional water quantity and quality issues in local watersheds. It is
our belief that water supply issues in Oregon and elsewhere in the
nation can be resolved best at the local level, in cooperative
partnership efforts that promote conservation with a more aggressive
Federal funding partnership as defined in RCPP.
examples of successful awep projects in oregon
Oregon has had several successful AWEP applicants over the past
several years, three from our member districts (described below).
--The Whychus Creek/Three Sisters Irrigation District Collaborative
Restoration Project focuses on irrigation water efficiency with
irrigation improvements in the Upper Division of the Three
Sisters Irrigation District, which is the project partner. The
effort will improve stream flows and water quality for native
fish while providing farmers a reliable supply of water. Fiscal
Year 2013 Funding: $180,000; Fiscal Year 2012 $251,300
--The Talent Irrigation District Project works with agricultural
producers to install conservation practices that will properly
utilize limited surface water resources, improve water quality
on flood irrigated land by converting to more efficient
irrigation systems, and apply irrigation water management to
eliminate irrigation runoff. Fiscal Year 2013 Funding: $0;
Fiscal Year 2012 Funding: $4,470
--The Willow Creek Project helps landowners in the Lower Willow Creek
Watershed portion of Malheur County convert to water-saving
irrigation systems, reduce irrigation runoff, and improve water
quality in Willow Creek and Malheur River. The project partner
is the Vale Oregon Irrigation District. Fiscal Year 2013
Funding: $180,000; Fiscal Year 2012 $251,300
--In Oregon, NRCS is helping develop the Save Water, Save Energy
Initiative, a multi-agency cooperative effort to develop a
clearinghouse of information on financial incentives and
technical expertise to assist districts and their water users
in implementing conservation measures.
Additional innovative projects like the ones above could be
developed and implemented in Oregon if more funding is made available.
small watershed rehabilitation program and watershed planning needs
OWRC also strongly supports the Small Watershed Rehabilitation
Program. One of our members, Sutherlin Water Control District (SWCD)
has two dams that were built under PL-566. Both dams are reaching 50
years old and while they were built to seismic standards 50 years ago,
they are no longer up to par. In 2010, SWCD received $40,000 ($20,000
for each dam) for a needs assessment study that determined that both
dams are high hazard and in immediate need of retrofit and repair. The
two dams are in such desperate need of repair that they are numbers 1
and 2 on Oregon NRCS' priority list for funding. A more thorough
seismic study is needed to determine how to bring the dams up to code,
but it is important to note that even a small earthquake (less than a
2.0 on the Richter scale) has the potential to damage the dams severely
enough to cause breaches, flooding and damaging property and resources
in the surrounding area. NRCS needs significant funding so it can
address its high priority dams, like the ones in the SWCD. A minimum of
$250 million dollars in funding is needed for NRCS to address and
repair high priority dams, like the ones in the SWCD. It would also be
beneficial if the program was given flexibility to include piping and
water conservation projects that have multiple environmental, farming
and safety benefits.
OWRC also reiterates requests made in previous years that the
``Bridging the Headgates'' MOU be reactivated and expanded to include
other Federal agencies. The need for continued coordination among
Federal agencies, including NRCS, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR),
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
NOAA Fisheries, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE), is a significant issue. With the historic loss of
watershed planning funding, reactivating and expanding this program to
other Federal agencies would be a very cost-effective alternative.
In the past, Oregon NRCS used a watershed resources planning team
to conduct Rapid Watershed Assessments throughout Oregon. This planning
program helped prioritize projects to bring about the most benefit in
critical watersheds and getting on-the-ground conservation projects
completed in a timely manner. A number of NRCS funded district projects
have been implemented using the data from this program.
Following in the vein of the Rapid Watershed Assessments, Oregon
has adopted a Strategic Approach to Conservation. The goal is to invest
technical and financial resources to strategically solve natural
resource problems and be more effective, efficient, and accountable for
staffing, funding and partnerships. This strategy is intended to
accelerate the conservation implementation and leverage technical and
financial resources required to solve the problem. These types of
program activities are effective tools that need a consistent funding
source.
conclusion
Our member districts, the farms and other water users they serve,
and the communities in which they are located benefit greatly from the
NRCS programs described in our testimony. Oregon's agricultural
community is actively committed to water conservation programs, but
those programs require Federal participation if the agricultural
community is to be able to continue its efforts to address Oregon's
water supply needs through water conservation. Increasing the budget
for NRCS programs is a strategic investment that will pay both
environmental and economic dividends to Oregonians and America as a
whole. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for the
record on the proposed fiscal year 2015 budget for the U.S. Department
of Agriculture.
[This statement was submitted by April Snell, Executive Director,
Oregon Water Resources Congress.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Organic Trade Association (OTA)
Chairman Aderholt, Ranking Member Farr, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am Laura Batcha, Executive Director and CEO of the
Organic Trade Association (OTA).\1\ The organic agricultural economy
continues to be one of the fastest-growing sectors of American
agriculture and is a job creator. The Organic Foods Production Act of
1990 (OFPA) set in motion the creation of a vibrant marketplace that
has grown to $35 billion in sales over 22 years, at a 2012 growth rate
of over 10 percent.\2\ The industry is comprised of over 17,000 organic
businesses in the U.S., and is creating jobs in the manufacturing
sector at four times the rate of the economy as a whole.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Organic Trade Association is the membership-based business
association representing more than 6,500 organizations in the organic
industry including growers, shippers, processors, certifiers, farmers'
associations, distributors, importers, exporters, consultants,
retailers, and others. OTA's mission is to promote and protect the
growth of organic trade to benefit the environment, farmers, the
public, and the economy.
\2\ 2013 Organic Trade Association Organic Industry survey.
\3\ National Organic Program database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic is more than simply a marketing seal; it is a distinct
production system with independent marketplace dynamics. When viewed as
a distinct class, organic ranks fourth in food/feed crop production at
farm-gate values.\4\ This parallel stream of commerce and agricultural
production is a bright spot in the American marketplace of innovation
and entrepreneurship. Organic is no longer a niche product category, it
is a mainstream market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NASS USDA 2011 Organic Production Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Farm Bill passed into law earlier this year recognizes this,
and brings an enhanced array of authorities and resources to help the
organic sector continue to grow, innovate, create new markets and jobs,
provide certified operations new tools to succeed, and ensure access to
safe and nutritious food supply. To facilitate this, we respectfully
request the following funding levels for programs pertinent to the
organic industry: USDA (AMS) National Organic Program--$9.1 million;
USDA (AMS) Organic Data Initiative--$309,000; USDA (NASS) Organic Data
Initiative--$250,000; USDA (NIFA) Organic Transition Research Program--
$4 million; USDA (RCBS) Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural
Areas--$2.5 million; USDA (ARS) Genetic Improvements and Translational
Breeding Program--report language directing the funding be fully
allocated to regionally adapted public cultivar development; and USDA
(NIFA) Food Safety Outreach Program--$2.5 million.
national organic program (nop)
OTA requests $9.1 million for the National Organic Program, which
is charged with regulating the organic sector, and not only enforcing
the organic regulations, but ensuring they evolve to keep pace with
consumer expectations. This program is vital to meeting growing
consumer demand for organic products. Recognizing continued growth of
the industry and the need for fiscal restraint, we ask for $9.1
million, the amount in the President's Budget and an amount that
reflects the over 10 percent growth rate of the sector. The industry
currently returns over $200 for every $1 spent on the NOP, so an
increased investment would garner a strong return for the Federal
government.
organic data initiative (odi)
ODI collects and disseminates data regarding organic agriculture
through the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and the National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). This program has been
successful in providing valuable information to Congress, government
agencies, and the organic industry at a low cost. Because ODI was
appropriately funded with mandatory funding in the 2014 Farm Bill, we
ask for a modest amount of $309,000 in discretionary funding for AMS
and $250,000 in discretionary funding for NASS.
AMS collects organic prices and disseminates the data through
Market News Reports, which give producers and buyers farm-gate selling
prices for several organic products, helping to create a more stable
organic market. This is an excellent first step, but organic pricing
information falls far behind what is available to conventional
agriculture. Organic producers currently receive farm-gate prices for
only a limited number of products, while conventional producers receive
farm-gate, terminal, and retail price information for many products in
all regions of the country. Organic producers, processors, and
retailers need this information to maintain a stable organic market.
Moreover, this information is necessary for the Secretary to fulfill
his recently announced policy directive regarding crop insurance. We
therefore request $309,000 for AMS to continue and expand organic price
reporting services in fiscal year 2015.
NASS provides surveys based on Census of Agriculture data. In
October 2012, NASS released the Organic Production Survey (2011), the
second survey to provide a state-by-state collection of the amount of
farmland used for organic production and gross farm sales of organic
products. Such information has long been provided for conventional
production, and should continue to be funded for organic production.
OTA requests that NASS receive $250,000 in fiscal year 2015, to
continue work on the next Organic Production Survey.
organic transition research program (org)
OTA requests that ORG be funded at $4 million in fiscal year 2015,
the same level that is included in the President's budget. Authorized
by Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education
Reform Act of 1998, ORG provides funding for research grants that
specifically study the relationship between organic agriculture and
improving critical water quality problems. This program consistently
receives many more funding requests than it can accommodate.
Organic retail sales have grown to over 4 percent of retail
agriculture sales, but research funding provided to organic agriculture
has never exceeded 2 percent of all agriculture research dollars.
Without continued funding of ORG as an organic-specific research grant
program, this gap will only increase. The program should be funded at
$4 million to facilitate growth of this important research.
appropriate technology transfer for rural areas (attra)
We request $2.5 million to fund ATTRA, the amount that is found in
the President's budget. ATTRA helps thousands of organic and
conventional farmers across the country by supplying information about
a wide range of issues. Topics that are routinely asked about include
creating rural jobs by encouraging farming; developing new marketing
opportunities by focusing on local foods, farm-to-school, and farmers'
markets; reducing the use of herbicides and pesticides; employing farm
practices that help protect air, water, and soil resources; and
reducing energy and water use. ATTRA reports that 30 percent of the
calls received relate to organic practices.
genetic improvements and translational breeding program
OTA requests that the entirety of the funding dedicated to the
Genetic Improvements and Translational Breeding Program be dedicated to
regionally adapted public cultivar development. Public resources for
classical breeding have dwindled in recent decades, and our capacity
for public breeding is in critical condition. U.S. agricultural
productivity and resilience will be strengthened by the development of
new public breeds, lines, and strains with better climate adaptation,
drought tolerance, disease resistance, nutritional value, production
efficiencies, and impact on the environment. It is essential that the
work done by USDA on breeding--investment of public monies--be
dedicated entirely to regionally adapted public cultivar development.
Public monies should go to public research, not research on privately
held breeding technologies.
food safety outreach program
OTA requests that the Food Safety Outreach Program be funded at
$2.5 million, the amount that is in the President's budget. This will
provide food safety training and technical assistance, education, and
extension to owners and operators of small farms, small food
processors, and small fruit and vegetable vendors affected by the Food
Safety Modernization Act of 2011 (FSMA). This money will help farmers
and food processors understand, interpret, implement, and comply with
the new food safety regulations currently being proposed by the FDA.
conclusion
Organic agriculture creates economic opportunities for farmers and
rural communities, while improving and conserving the condition of the
environment and giving consumers the choice to buy foods and other
products that are produced according to organic standards. Meeting
these funding requests will help to ensure the continued growth of U.S.
organic agriculture by promoting and supporting the integrity of the
organic label, providing important data, and continuing to support
research for organic agriculture.
I thank the Committee and look forward to working with you to
advance the organic industry.
[This statement was submitted by Laura Batcha, Executive Director
and CEO of the Organic Trade Association (OTA).]
______
Prepared Statement of the Outreach and Assistance to Socially
Disadvantaged and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers
As the subcommittee considers fiscal year 2015 Agriculture
Appropriations, we urge you to provide adequate funding for a set of
critical programs that make a real difference in communities that most
need support. While only a fraction of the full agriculture budget
these are the lifeblood for socially disadvantaged, new entry and
veteran producers, farmworkers and communities:
Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged and Veteran
Farmers and Ranchers: We request that the committee restore the funding
base of the OASDVFR Program to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to
assist both socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers in
participating equitably in the full range of USDA agricultural
programs. Specifically we urge you to provide not less than $10 million
in additional funding to supplement the direct funding of $10 million
annually in order to assure the program can accommodate both the
traditional and new constituencies of the program, and ensure that
Veteran Farmers and Ranchers are able to fully benefit from the
program.
The OASDVFR Program helps our nation's historically underserved
producers gain access to the United States Department of Agriculture's
credit, commodity, conservation and other programs and services by
supporting technical assistance to producers through community-based
organizations, tribes and educational institutions best prepared to
reach and serve them. Established in Section 2501 of the 1990 Farm
Bill, OASDFR provides technical assistance to reduce the trend among
socially disadvantaged producers of engaging in fewer farm program
payments, fewer and lower-valued loans, and less outreach and training
than other producers.
--The OASDVFR Program in recent years has served more than 100,000
rural constituents and is an invaluable resource for the more
than 400 counties in more than 35 states serving a wide range
of socially disadvantaged recipients living in persistent
poverty areas of the country.
--The program is bringing diverse producers back to USDA or in the
door for the first time greatly increasing participation in the
NRCS High-tunnel program and the FSA microloan program. OASDVFR
programs are fundamental to the goals and work of Secretary
Vilsack's Strikeforce Initiative.
--The 2014 Farm Bill expanded the program to include Veteran Farmers
and Ranchers, but with a 50 percent reduction from previous
funding levels to provide only $10 million in direct funds
annually. With adequate resources, the OASDVFR Program can also
provide critical support for veteran farmers and ranchers. The
2010 Census identified 21.9 million veterans in 2009, including
156,000 American Indian Veterans, 2.4 million African American
Veterans, 1.2 million Hispanic Veterans, and 265,000 Asian
Veterans. Many Veterans are from rural areas.
--The lack of funding for the program in fiscal year 2013 has meant
that groups receiving support have already or are laying off
hundreds of experienced staff as the final year of their
contacts have expired creating a service gap to thousands of
producers who need their assistance to access USDA programs.
Restoring these services is essential with a new Farm Bill
coming into effect.
We strongly support this important program and ask you to support
funding at the fully authorized level to ensure both the traditional
constituencies and the expanded constituency of Veteran Farmers and
Ranchers are able to fully benefit from the program.
USDA Coordination Activities: Beginning and socially disadvantaged
producers have long needed an office at USDA to help better understand
and utilize the wide array of USDA services. The Office of Advocacy and
Outreach, established in the 2008 Farm Bill, is in full operation and
working effectively with communities across the nation to provide
equitable access to its programs and enhance the viability and
profitability of our nation's diverse and new entry producers. We urge
you to provide the full $2 million authorized to support OAO's staffing
and operational needs and activities related to the new Military
Veterans Agricultural Liaison as well as the Farmworker Coordinator and
the OASDVFR Program; overseeing the Advisory Committees on Minority
Farmers and Ranchers, and Beginning Farmers and Ranchers; and managing
the 1890, 1994 and Hispanic serving institutions programs. Adequate OAO
funding will enhance coordination among USDA agencies as a new Farm
Bill takes effect to include underserved constituencies and Strikeforce
areas.
In order to provide critically needed services to tribal producers,
we urge you to expand funding for the federally Recognized Tribal
Extension Program (FRTEP) to at least $10 million for fiscal year 2015
to reach at least 100 of the 566 Tribes. Congress mandates research and
extension services in every county in the nation--over 3,100 offices
nationwide, funded cooperatively by county, state, and Federal levels
of government. Extension services are not extended to Indian
Reservations, except through the limited Federal funds provided through
USDA to the FRTEP. Tribes contribute in-kind cost share for office
space and a small portion of operating expenses.
Only 36 extension agents are supported on Indian reservations with
current funding of $3 million. The inadequate funding of FRTEP has a
profound negative impact on the long-term viability of tribal
agriculture, which remains a critical basis for the economic security,
health and nutrition of Native Americans.
Fewer than 4 percent of American Indians living on America's Indian
reservations have access to these programs, yet more than 97 percent of
America's counties have had robust programs since 1914. Increased
funding would allow FRTEP to serve better the many tribes who have
repeatedly requested full access to these programs. It is time that
Native American producers, families, youth and reservation residents
receive the same level of service as US citizens who are not
reservation-bound. In order to correct this grave inequity, we urge you
to provide $10 million for this program in the fiscal year 2015
Agriculture Appropriation.
The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Account
(BFRIDA) Program is designed to help beginning farmers and ranchers of
limited means finance their farming endeavors through business and
financial education and matched savings accounts. This new program
helps individuals with financial training and assistance so they can
build assets and make needed purchases to get started in agriculture.
We urge you support of $2.5 million fiscal year 2015 appropriation for
BFRIDA so it can work together with other new farmer initiatives to
create economic opportunities and greater stability for both urban and
rural beginning farmers. We further urge you to support the President's
fiscal year 2015 Budget Request for program leve1s of $1.5 billion for
Direct Farm Ownership loans and $1.252 billion for Direct Operating
Loans. We also urge you to instruct FSA to develop price information to
improve eligibility and lending capabilities for farmers growing for
local and regional food markets.
We also urge you to ensure that farmers and ranchers who are in
economic trouble receive fair loan restructuring and servicing of their
loans by funding the Federal match for State Mediation Programs at $5
million. These programs currently operate in 40 states.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)--We request
that you invest in critical sustainable agriculture research and
education conducted at the field level by farmers themselves by
including funding for fiscal year 2015 of $30 million the SARE program.
Healthy Food Financing Initiative: We urge you improve health
outcomes and increase access to healthy foods for low-income people by
strengthening local food systems through significant investments of
funds from both the Department of Agriculture and Department of
Treasury necessary to get the Healthy Food Financing Initiative fully
operational in fiscal year 2015.
Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer BT (SEBTC) pilot projects: For
the past 2 years, USDA has been conducting pilot projects in eight
states and two Indian nations that used electronic benefits to reach
children when school meals are unavailable. These pilots have been
proving remarkably successful at reducing childhood hunger and we urge
they be continued with a $30 million investment.
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI): We support
inclusion of report language and funding for increased public research
and development of seed varieties and livestock breeds to ensure the
diversity of our nation's food supply. Specifically, we urge the
inclusion of report language on public cultivar development be included
under AFRI, and for USDA to see classical plant and animal breeding as
a priority area within the AFRI process.
Rural Cooperative Development Grants: We urge you to provide $9.1
million for RCDG, including $3 million for centers targeting socially
disadvantaged producers to assist individuals in beginning and
expanding cooperatives. We oppose the Administration's proposal to
consolidate RCDC into a Rural Business and Cooperative Grants program.
Rural Microenterprise Assistance Program: We urge you to foster
development in rural areas by preserving the full mandatory funding of
$3 million as provided in the 2014 Farm bill and by adding an
additional $3.3 million in discretionary funding, for total support of
$6.3 million.
Value-Added Producer Grants: VAPG offers grants to farmers and
ranchers developing farm- and food-related businesses that boost farm
income and create jobs in rural America. Growing interest in local and
regional foods means greater need for regional supply chains and
enterprises that aggregate local production, exactly the kind of rural
development strategy VAPG is designed to support. We request no changes
in mandatory program spending as well as $15 million in discretionary
funding for VAPG, the same level as included in the final fiscal year
14 bill.
Food Safety Training: We urge you to provide funding to assist
farmers to adapt to coming Food Safety and Modernization Act rules for
Food Safety Training at $5 million for fiscal year 2015.
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas: We urge you to
provide $2.5 million to ATTRA for fiscal year 2015 to provide support
to farmers and extension agents across the country.
Organic Transitions Integrated Research Program: We urge you to
provide $5 million to invest in new organic research with farmer
delivery systems included and allow organics a fairer portion of the
research budget.
Federal-State Market Improvement Program: We request funding be
continued at the fiscal year 2014 level of $1.363 million. This program
is critical in matching funds to state departments of agriculture to
assist with research and creating new markets for farmers.
Conservation Programs: We further urge you to protect and maintain
direct funding for agricultural conservation programs including the
Environmental Quality Incentive Program and the Conservation
Stewardship Program, and other programs that help producers across the
nation protect their land. The diverse producers we represent are
returning to USDA through these programs, and building up small
operations that care for the land and contribute to the economic
viability of small rural communities in some of the poorest areas of
the nation.
Implementation and Enforcement of Existing Laws: We strongly
support allowing USDA to implement and enforce existing laws relating
to provisions of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and the Grain
Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) as included in
the 2008 Farm Bill. We strongly oppose the use of riders within the
appropriations process to limit the authority of the USDA to enforce
these important laws.
As you proceed with funding for these important programs for fiscal
year 2015, we urge you to consider the impacts of your funding
decisions on the next generation of American farmers and ranchers, and
with great care to being inclusive of beginning, minority, tribal,
women, and limited resource farmers who are often in most need of these
important programs.
Rural Coalition/Coalicin Rural, Washington, DC Community Food &
Justice Coalition, Oakland, CA Farmers Veteran Coalition, Davis, CA
Federation of Southern Cooperatives Rural Training and Research
Center, Epes, AL
National Alliance of Farmworker Women, Oxnard, CA National Family
Farm Coalition, Washington, DC National Hmong American Farmers, Inc.,
Fresno, CA
National Latino Farmers and Ranchers Trade Association, Washington,
DC
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Washington, DC
North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers Land Loss Prevention
Project, Durham, NC
21st Century Youth Leadership Movement, Eutaw, Alabama Alabama
State Association of Cooperatives, Forkland, AL Albany Food Justice
Coalition, Albany, NY
American Federation of Government Employees Local 3354, St. Louis,
MO
American Indian Mothers Inc., Shannon, NC
Arkansas Land and Community Development Corporation, Brinkley, AR
Ashtabula, Geauga, Lake Counties Farmers Union (Ohio), OH Atrisco
Land Grant, Atrisco, New Mexico
California FarmLink, Santa Cruz, CA
Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, Pittsboro, NC CASA del
Llano, Hereford, TX
Center for Social Inclusion, New York, NY Citizens For Water, New
York, NY
Colorado Latino Farmers and Ranchers, Antonito, CO
Concerned Citizens of Wagon Mound and Mora County, Wagon Mound, NM
Dakota Rural Action, Brookings, SD
Damascus Citizens for Sustainability, Milanville, PA
Delgado Farms, El Paso, TX
Ecohermanas, Washington, DC
Environmental Justice and Health Alliance for Chemical Policy
Reform, Washington, DC
Fair World Project, Portland, OR
Farmworker Association of Florida, Apopka, FL
Fernandez Ranch, Centerville, WA FOCUS Churches of Albany, Albany,
NY
Food Chain Workers Alliance, Los Angeles, CA Grassroots
International, Boston, MA
Hmong National Development, Inc., Washington, D.C. Hunger Action
Network of New York State, New York, NY
Indian Country Agriculture and Resource Development Cooperation,
Anadarko, OK Indian Nations Conservation Alliance, Twin Bridges, MT
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, MN Land
Stewardship Project, MN
Latino Economic Development Center, Minneapolis, MN Local Matters,
Columbus, OH
Los Jardines Institute (The Gardens Institute), Albuquerque, NM
Maine Rural Partners, Orono, MAINE
Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, East Troy, WI Mississippi
Association of Cooperatives, Jackson, MS
Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society, Ceresco, NE
Northern New Mexico Stockmans' Association, Espanola, New Mexico
Northwest Farm Bill Action Group, Seattle, WA Northwest Forest
Worker Center, Albany, CA NYH2O, New York, NY
Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project, Inc., Oklahoma City, OK
Operation Spring Plant, Inc., Oxford, NC Orangeburg County Young
Farmer, Orangeburg, SC Pesticide Action Network, Oakland, CA
Pululu Farms, Arroyo Seco, NM
Quote...Unquote, Inc, Albuquerque, NM Roots of Change, Oakland, CA
Rural Advancement Fund, Orangeburg, SC
Rural Development Leadership Network, New York, NY
San Diego 1 in 10 Coalition, San Diego, CA San Diego Hunger
Coalition, San Diego, CA Slow Food California, Sacramento, CA
South Valley Regional Association of Acequias, Albuquerque, NM
Southwest Workers Union, San Antonio, TX
Taos County Economic Development Corporation, Taos, NM
Victory Garden Foundation, Oakland, CA Viva Farms, Burlington, WA
Western Sustainable Agriculture Working Group, Austin, NV
WhyHunger, New York, NY
Winston County Self Help Coop, Louisville, MS World Farmers, Inc.,
Lancaster, MA
[This statement was submitted by Lorette Picciano, Rural
Coalition.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Pickle Packers International, Inc.
concern for sustained and increased research funding usda/agricultural
research service
Summary
Sustained and increased funding is desperately needed to maintain
the research momentum built over recent years and to defray rising
fixed costs at laboratory facilities. Companies in the pickled
vegetable industry generously participate in funding and performing
short-term research, but the expense for long-term research needed to
insure future global competitiveness is too great for individual
companies to shoulder on their own.
Additional Budget Requests for fiscal year 2015
Funding needs for USDA/ARS laboratories are as follows:
I. Requests for Program Enhancement--Pickled Vegetables
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerging Disease of Crops............................... $500,000
Quality and Utilization of Agricultural Products & Food 500,000
Safety.................................................
Applied Crop Genomics................................... 500,000
Specialty Crops......................................... 500,000
Total Program Enhancements Requested--Pickled $2,000,000
Vegetables.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
usda/ars research provides:
--Consumers with over 150 safe and healthful vegetable varieties
providing vitamins A, C, folate, magnesium, potassium, calcium,
and phytonutrients such as antioxidant carotenoids and
anthocyanins.
--Genetic resistance for many major vegetable diseases, assuring
sustainable crop production with reduced pesticide residues--
valued at nearly $1 billion per year in increased crop
production.
--Classical plant breeding methods combined with bio-technological
tools, such as DNA markers, genetic maps, and genome sequence
to expedite traditional breeding and increase efficiency.
--New vegetable products with economic opportunities amidst
increasing foreign competition.
--Improved varieties suitable for machine harvesting, assuring post
harvest quality and marketability.
--Fermentation and acidification processing techniques to improve the
efficiency of energy use, reduce environmental pollution, and
reduce clean water intake while continuing to assure safety and
quality of our products.
--Methods for delivering beneficial microorganisms in fermented or
acidified vegetables, and produce reduced sodium, healthier
products.
--New technology and systems for rapid inspection, sorting and
grading of pickling vegetable products.
health and economical benefits
--Health agencies continue to encourage increased consumption of
fruits and vegetables, useful in preventing heart disease,
cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity.
--Vegetable crops, including cucumbers, peppers, carrots, onions,
garlic and cabbage (sauerkraut), are considered ``specialty''
crops and not part of commodity programs supported by taxpayer
subsidies.
--Current farm value for just cucumbers, onions and garlic is
estimated at $2.4 billion with a processed value of $5.8
billion. These vegetables are grown and/or manufactured in all
50 states.
a statement of concern for sustained and increased research funding
usda/agricultural research service
The pickled vegetable industry strongly supports and encourages
your committee in its work of maintaining and guiding the Agricultural
Research Service. To accomplish the goal of improved health and quality
of life for the American people, the health action agencies of this
country continue to encourage increased consumption of fruits and
vegetables in our diets. Accumulating evidence from the epidemiology
and biochemistry of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity
supports this policy. Vitamins (particularly A, C, and folic acid),
minerals, and a variety of antioxidant phytochemicals in plant foods
are thought to be the basis for correlation's between high fruit and
vegetable consumption and reduced incidence of these debilitating and
deadly diseases.
As an association representing processors that produce over 85
percent of the tonnage of pickled vegetables in North America, it is
our goal to produce new products that increase the competitiveness of
U.S. agriculture as well as meet the demands of an increasingly diverse
U.S. population that is encouraged to eat more vegetables. The profit
margins of growers continue to be narrowed by foreign competition. This
industry can grow by meeting today's lifestyle changes with reasonably
priced products of good texture and flavor that are high in nutritional
value, low in negative environmental impacts, and produced with assured
safety from pathogenic microorganisms and from those who would use food
as a vehicle for terror. With strong research to back us up, we believe
our industry can make a greater contribution toward reducing product
costs and improving human diets and health for all economic strata of
U.S. society.
Many small to medium sized growers and processing operations are
involved in the pickled vegetable industry. We grow and process a group
of vegetable crops, including cucumbers, peppers, carrots, onions,
garlic, cauliflower, cabbage (Sauerkraut) and Brussels sprouts, which
are referred to as `minor' crops. None of these crops are in any
``commodity program'' and do not rely on taxpayer subsidies. However,
current farm value for just cucumbers, onions and garlic is $2.4
billion with an estimated processed value of $5.8 billion. These crops
represent important sources of income to farmers and rural America.
Growers, processing plant employees and employees of suppliers to this
industry reside in all 50 states. To realize its potential in the
rapidly changing American economy, this industry will rely upon a
growing stream of appropriately directed basic and applied research
from four important research programs within the Agricultural Research
Service.
applied crop genomics
The USDA/ARS has the only vegetable crops research unit dedicated
to the genetic improvement of cucumbers, carrots, onions and garlic.
ARS scientists account for approximately half of the total U.S. public
breeding and genetics research on these crops. Their efforts have
yielded cucumber, carrot and onion cultivars and breeding stocks that
are widely used by the U.S. vegetable industry (i.e., growers,
processors, and seed companies). These varieties account for over half
of the farm yield produced by these crops today. All U.S. seed
companies rely upon this program for developing new varieties, because
ARS programs seek to introduce economically important traits (e.g.,
pest resistances and health-enhancing characteristics) not available in
commercial varieties using long-term high risk research efforts. The
U.S. vegetable seed industry develops new varieties of cucumbers,
carrots, onions, and garlic and over twenty other vegetables used by
thousands of vegetable growers. Their innovations meet long-term needs
and bring innovations in these crops for the U.S. and export markets,
for which the U.S. has successfully competed.
ARS scientists have developed genetic resistance for many major
vegetable diseases that is estimated at $670 million per year in
increased crop production, not to mention environmental benefits due to
reduction in pesticide use. New research has resulted in cucumbers with
improved disease resistance, pickling quality and suitability for
machine harvesting. New sources of genetic resistance to viral and
fungal diseases, tolerance to environmental stresses, and higher yield
have recently been identified along with molecular tools to expedite
delivery of elite cucumber lines to U.S. growers.
There are still serious vegetable production problems which need
attention. For example, losses of cucumbers, onions, and carrots in the
field due to attack by pathogens and pests remains high, nutritional
quality needs to be significantly improved and U.S. production value
and export markets should be enhanced. Genetic improvement of all the
attributes of these valuable crops are at hand through the unique USDA
lines and populations (i.e., germplasm) that are available and the new
biotechnological methodologies that are being developed by the group.
The achievement of these goals will involve the utilization of a wide
range of biological diversity available in the germplasm collections
for these crops. Classical plant breeding methods combined with bio-
technological tools such as DNA markers, genetic maps, and genome
sequences to expedite traditional cucumber, carrot and onion breeding
and increase its efficiency. With this, new high-value vegetable
products based upon genetic improvements developed by our USDA
laboratories can offer vegetable processors and growers expanded
economic opportunities for U.S. and export markets.
quality and utilization of agricultural products & food safety
The USDA/ARS maintains a food science research unit that our
industry looks to for new scientific information on the safety of our
products and development of new processing technologies related to
fermented and acidified vegetables. Major accomplishments include:
pasteurization treatments currently used for most acidified vegetables;
the preservation technology used for manufacturing shelf stable sweet
pickles; and fermentation technology (purging) used to prevent the
formation of air pockets within fermented pickles. With the passage of
the Food Safety Modernization Act, commercial producers of acidified
foods must prove that they meet critical limits established for
microbial safety. USDA-ARS has supplied technical expertise and the
scientific data needed to define safe processing conditions for
domestic and imported pickled vegetable products, saving considerable
expense to the industry for microbial challenge studies. These data are
currently used to support required process filings, and have helped
establish a scientific basis for acidified food regulations. Additional
funding is needed to support the important research initiatives
detailed below.
First, nearly all retail pickled vegetables are pasteurized for
safety and shelf stability. Current steam and water bath pasteurizers
rely on technology from the 1940s and 50s. Promising new technologies
include continuous flow microwave technology and ``hot-fill-and-hold''
pasteurization. The objective is to reduce water use and significantly
improve energy efficiency with new, scientifically validated thermal
processing technology.
Second, additional research that offers significant economic and
environmental advantages to the U.S. industry includes the reduction or
replacement of salt in commercial vegetable fermentations and bulk
acidification. Calcium substitution of salt in commercial vegetable
processing has the potential to significantly reduce chloride levels in
waste waters and sludge currently delivered to landfills; and create
opportunities to manufacture healthier, calcium enriched, reduced
sodium vegetable products. Reducing environmental impact and production
costs for the manufacture of healthier products is essential to the
sustainability of the U.S. industry.
Third, the market of refrigerated vegetable products is rapidly
growing in the U.S. These products are attractive to conscientious
customers targeting healthier, beneficial and bioactive food
formulations. Fermented vegetables presented in the refrigerated sector
deliver natural microbiota perceived as probiotic bacteria by a growing
market. New processing technologies and knowledge of the intrinsic
value of the natural microbiota in fermented vegetables are needed to
develop genuine, high value, probiotic vegetable products that provide
health benefits for the average U.S. citizen.
specialty crops
The USDA/ARS conducts research on the development of innovative
technologies for rapid, nondestructive measurement and grading of
fruits and pickling vegetables to enhance product quality and
marketability and achieve labor cost savings. The research program is
nationally and internationally recognized for its pioneering research
and development and technology transfer effort in imaging and
spectroscopic inspection technologies, which have found wide
applications in food quality and safety inspection. Currently, ARS
researchers are developing a spectral imaging-based common inspection
platform and other related sensing technologies with substantially
improved capabilities for quality evaluation and grading of pickling
vegetables and fruits at the processing facility and in the field.
Development of new and/or improved sensing technologies will help
growers and processors assess, monitor, inspect, and grade pickling
vegetables and horticultural products rapidly and accurately for
internal and external quality characteristics at various steps of
harvest and postharvest handling and processing operations. This will
minimize postharvest losses of food that has already been produced,
ensure high quality, consistent final product and consumer
satisfaction, and reduce production cost. Expansion of the USDA/ARS
research in food quality sensing and automation is critically needed,
so that it can develop and deliver these much needed technologies to
the specialty crop industry.
emerging disease of crops
USDA/ARS vegetable research addresses national problems confronting
the vegetable industry of the southeastern U.S. The mission of the
laboratory is to develop disease and pest resistant vegetables, and
also new, reliable, environmentally-sound disease and pest management
practices that do not rely on conventional pesticides. Programs
currently address 14 crops, including those in the cabbage, cucumber,
and pepper families, all of major importance to the pickling industry.
USDA/ARS research is recognized world-wide, and its accomplishments
include over 150 new vegetable varieties and many improved management
practices.
Expansion of this program would directly benefit the southeastern
vegetable industry. Vegetable growers depend heavily on synthetic
pesticides to control diseases and pests. Without the availability of
certain pesticides that have been eliminated for use, producers are
likely to experience crop failures unless other effective, non-
pesticide control methods are readily identified. In this context, the
research on improved, more efficient and environmentally compatible
vegetable production practices and resistant varieties continues to be
absolutely essential. This research can help provide U.S. growers with
a competitive edge they need to sustain and keep their industry
vibrant, allowing it to expand in the face of increasing foreign
competition. Current cucumber varieties are highly susceptible to a new
strain of the downy mildew pathogen which has caused considerable
damage to commercial cucumber production in eastern states in recent
years. A new plant pathologist position could address this critical
situation.
funding needs for the future
It remains critical that funding continues the forward momentum in
pickled vegetable research that the U.S. now enjoys and to increase
funding levels as warranted by planned expansion of research projects
to maintain U.S. competitiveness. The diverse array of companies making
up our industry assumes responsibility for short-term research, but the
expense and risk are too great for individual companies to commit to
the long-term research needed to insure future competitiveness.
It is important to note that fiscal year 2013 Enacted funding for
USDA/ARS laboratories totaled $10,212,000. However, fiscal year 2013
Enacted funding for all cucurbits equaled just $3,665,000 with only
$1,876,000 directed toward cucumber and pickled vegetable research. For
fiscal year 2015, PPI is requesting an additional $2,000,000 in program
enhancements that will provide needed research for cucumber and pickled
vegetables.
emerging disease of crops
There is a critical need to establish and fund a plant pathology
position to address cucumber diseases, especially the disease caused by
a new strain of the downy mildew pathogen responsible for recent
extensive damage to cucumber production in eastern states. The
pathologist is needed to characterize pathogen strains and to develop
new management approaches, as well as resistant cucumber varieties, to
combat the disease. Ultimately, this proposed plant pathologist would
accomplish research that results in effective protection of cucumbers
from disease without the use of conventional pesticides.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2013Enacted........................... $425,000
2014 Estimate......................... $425,000
2015 (Proposed budget)................ To be determined
2015 Additional Request (Plant $500,000
Pathologist & support).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quality and utilization of agricultural products and food safety
The current funding includes research and development for a variety
of vegetable products, including fermented and acidified vegetables.
For new research initiatives to reduce energy and water use, reduce
environmental impact from commercial fermentations, and develop new
health-promoting food (probiotic) technology, we request additional
support of $500,000. This will provide support for Post-Doctoral or
Pre-Doctoral research associates along with necessary equipment and
supplies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2013 Enacted.......................... $599,000
2014 Estimate......................... $599,000
2015 (Proposed budget)................ To be determined
2015 Additional Request (Post-doctoral $500,000
and Pre-doctoral Research Associate &
support).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLIED CROP GENOMICS
Emerging and persisting diseases, such as downy mildew,
southern root knot nematode, and angular leaf spot of cucumber,
threaten production of the crop in all production areas. We
request an additional $500,000 to fully fund the scientists and
support staff, including graduate students and post-doctorates
for identifying and researching new sources of genetic
resistance to emerging diseases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year ............................
2013 Enacted.......................... $421,000
2014 Estimate......................... $421,000
2015 (Proposed budget)................ To be determined
2015 Additional Request (Post-doctoral $500,000
and Pre-doctoral Research Associate &
support).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
specialty crops
The current funding is far short of the level needed to carry out
research on inspection, sorting and grading of pickling cucumbers and
other vegetable crops to assure the processing and quality of pickled
products. An increase of $550,000 in the current base funding level
would be needed to fund the research engineer position.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year ............................
2013 Enacted.......................... $145,000
2014 Estimate......................... $145,000
2015 (Proposed budget)................ To be determined
2015 Additional Request (Research Engineer $500,000
& support).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Prepared Statement of the Rural Cooperative Development Grant (RCDG)
CooperationWorks! is requesting the Rural Cooperative Development
Grant (RCDG) program of USDA's Rural Business--Cooperative Service be
continued in the fiscal year 2015 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
The President's fiscal year 2015 budget request, like the previous
fiscal year 2014 budget request, contains a proposal to eliminate a
number of rural development programs, including the Rural Cooperative
Development Grant (RCDG) program, and consolidate them into a new $57.5
million economic development grant program. CooperationWorks! is
seriously concerned with the elimination of the only program in the
Federal government focused on the development of cooperative
enterprise, providing needed technical assistance for cooperative
expansion and start-up. The consolidation of the RCDG program in our
view will diminish the agency's focus and mission of supporting the
advancement of self-help programs, and cooperatives specifically, and
further takes away the ability of Congress to establish priorities and
accountability for the programs that Congress has historically
authorized and funded.
As the only network of technical assistance providers in the United
States, connecting over 100 professionals in rural and urban areas
alike, covering all 50 states, CooperationWorks! expresses its strong
support for the Rural Cooperative Development Grant (RCDG) program and
encourages the committee to support it through funding in fiscal year
2015 and beyond that will continue to allow cooperative development
centers to operate and further expand its reach into more rural
communities to provide the types of technical assistance to
cooperatives that allow for economic growth and job creation. In
addition, we request for initial funding of a new interagency working
group that was created in the recent Farm Bill and which is to be
coordinated and chaired by USDA. This funding would help to further
efforts to foster cooperative development and ensure coordination with
Federal agencies and national and local cooperative organizations that
have cooperative programs and interests.
The RCDG program is a competitive grants program, administered by
USDA's Rural Development, Rural Business-Cooperative Services Program.
The primary objective of the RCDG program is to improve the economic
condition of rural areas by assisting individuals or entities in the
startup, expansion, or operational improvement of rural cooperatives
and other business entities. Grants are awarded competitively on an
annual basis to nonprofits or institutions of higher education that
operate cooperative development centers who provide technical
assistance to those seeking to form cooperatively owned businesses in
rural areas. The maximum grant amount that USDA provides in a fiscal
year is $200,000. There is a 25 percent cost share requirement of the
total project cost (5 percent cost share for 1994 Institutions).
Cooperative development centers currently serve rural communities in
all 50 states. They use the grants to fund critical technical
assistance for economic development, such as legal and accounting
assistance, feasibility studies, business planning, board education,
and other services that help ensure the success of these businesses.
We understand that in this current fiscal environment, Federal
funding is limited and Congress has to make tough spending choices. We
believe funding in the RCDG account is a sound investment toward rural
economic development and job growth for more Americans. Through outcome
surveys conducted among the RCDG recipients in our membership, which
includes over half of all RCDG funded centers, we found that in 2011
for every $1,362 in Federal dollars there was a result of one job saved
or created. This efficient use of program funds is possible because of
the matching funding requirement in the program, the self-help nature
of the cooperative business model, and the efficient use of funds
stewarded by RCDG program recipients.
[This statement was submitted by Tom Pierson, Advocacy Chair for
CooperationWorks!]
______
Prepared Statement of the Society for Women's Health Research (SWHR)
SWHR is pleased to submit written testimony to urge the Committee
to prioritize and provide an increase to the fiscal year 2015 budget
authority (BA) appropriations (non-user fees) for the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) of $2.784 billion, a $223 million increase over
fiscal year 2014 and $200 million above the President's budget proposal
for FDA. In addition, SWHR supports an allocation of $7 million for the
FDA Office of Women's Health (OWH) for fiscal year 2015. These
recommended allocations will allow the FDA to address resource
shortages across all centers, implement critical improvements in
infrastructure, and continue investment in OWH, the critical voice on
women's health and women's health research within the Agency.
The FDA, as regulator of products covering more than a quarter of
the US economy, should receive priority funding as its responsibilities
are critical to the health and well-being of all Americans. Each year,
Congress adds to FDA's ever increasing responsibilities but does not
provide appropriate funds to meet those demands reasonably, straining
the FDA's abilities. The fiscal year 2015 appropriations must reflect
an amount that meets the needs of the Agency demanded by Congress.
More than 47 percent of Americans have a chronic disease and 22
percent have multiple conditions. Eighty-two percent of Americans take
over the counter or prescription medications and 30 percent take more
than 5 medications. American consumers and patients expect proactive
scientific and research leadership from the FDA while demanding
assurance of the safety and effectiveness of their food, drugs and
cosmetics. To meet this expectation, the FDA spends over 80 percent of
its budget on salary costs in maintaining and recruiting talented and
smart researchers and scientists who can keep pace with scientific
innovation. Globalization and the complexity of our scientific research
world have put demands on the FDA that need additional appropriated
resources. Unfortunately, due to congressional funding levels and COLA
requirements, FDA annually is challenged and must frequently postpone
needed investments in infrastructure, technology, and human collateral
due to budget constraints.
While SWHR recognizes that Congress is focused on reducing our
Federal deficit, appropriate budgetary allocation must be provided to
allow FDA to react in a proactive manner for new scientific innovation
and against emerging or known threats to food and drug security. As the
thought leader in research on biological sex differences in disease,
SWHR is dedicated to transforming women's health through science,
advocacy, and education and believes that sustained funding for the FDA
and its regulatory responsibilities is absolutely essential if the U.S.
is to meet the needs of its citizens, especially women, and maintain
its gold standard.
In the past two decades, scientists have uncovered significant
biological and physiological differences between men and women.
Traditionally, the term women's health represented a women's
reproductive capability because science and medicine believed that
women and men were biologically the same. We now know this is not the
case.
Biological and physiological differences and hormonal fluctuations
play a role in the rate of drug absorption, distribution, metabolism,
elimination as well as ultimate effectiveness of response in females as
opposed to males. Information about the ways drugs may differ in
various populations, however, is often unexplored. As was noted by the
FDA in a recent The 60 Minutes segment (Feb. 9, 2014), women may
require a lower dosage of some drugs because of different rates of
absorption or metabolism (Ambien). The 60 Minutes highlighted the
importance of sex and gender differences research and the need to
examine sex from the earliest phases of research, starting in basic
science.
The FDA has a critical role in human subject research in assuring
female recruitment and retention is set at appropriate levels and not
too low to provide statistically significant results in research.
American women should have the confidence that drugs, devices and
biologics that have been approved for use in both men and women have
been appropriately analyzed for sex differences and the finding
publicly reported to a meaningful way for usage by both healthcare
providers and patients. America's biomedical development process, while
continuing to deliver new and better targeted medications to combat
disease, does not routinely analyze and reported sex differences. FDA's
must enforce its own requirement that the data acquired during research
of a new drug or device's safety and efficacy be reported and analyzed
by sex.
Pursuant to Section 907 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety
and Innovation Act of 2012 (FDASIA), the FDA released a report on
August 20, 2013 on the inclusion of demographic subgroups in clinical
trials and data analysis in drugs, biologic and device applications
submitted to the agency. The report, both the summary and the data,
coordinated and written by OWH and the Office of Minority Health (OMH)
demonstrated that while demographic data was submitted significant gaps
still existed with respect to representation, reporting and analysis of
the data for women, minorities and the elderly. The FDA is currently
designing an action plan, with short and long term recommendations and
implementation strategies to help FDA transform its approach toward
important demographic data. SWHR believes this will result in greater
knowledge of reactions to drugs and medical treatments by sex, age,
race and ethnicity, and further, greater understanding of devices and
their usage or limitations in women.
SWHR has long advocated that sex differences data discovered from
clinical trials be presented in a meaningful way to the medical
community and to patients through education, drug labels and packaging
inserts, and other forms of alerts directed to key audiences. Through
more accurate, sex-specific drug and device information and labeling
the FDA will better serve male and female patients, and will ensure
that appropriate sex specific data analysis of post-market surveillance
is placed in the hands of physicians and ultimately the patient in a
timely manner.
SWHR believes that Congress must commit to continued investment in
FDA's informational technology to assure continued advancement of data
standardization, collection and analysis. In our ever evolving digital
world, the FDA needs to keep pace with scientific discoveries and must
have the tools to do so. Congress must dedicate resources from
appropriated dollars and user fees to FDA's IT systems and
infrastructure to meet this demand.
fda office of women's health (owh)
OWH must have a steady and sustained investment to remain the key
resource in advancing regulatory science in women's health and
reporting of sex differences. OWH's programs ensure that sex and gender
differences in the efficacy of drugs (such as metabolism rates),
devices (sizes and functionality) and diagnostics are taken into
consideration in reviews and approvals. OWH seeks to correct sex and
gender disparities and monitors women's health priorities, through
leadership and active engagement with the FDA Centers.
American women rely on the tools OWH provides to them to help with
their healthcare decisions. Each year, OWH consumer pamphlets are the
most requested of any documents at the government printing facility in
Colorado, with more than 8 million distributed to women across America,
including target populations such as Hispanic communities, seniors and
low-income citizens on topics such as breast cancer screening,
diabetes, menopause hormone therapy, and medication use during
pregnancy.
In partnership with the National Institutes of Health Office of
Research on Women's Health, OWH created a website for an on-line sex
and gender course to provide additional educational tools for medical
practice and scientific innovation. Most recently, a third course in
the series will be going on-line. All courses offer free continuing
education credits for physicians, pharmacists and nurses. In addition,
OWH developed a toolkit and curriculum in a joint effort with the
American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. It is a Women's Health
curriculum elective given for credit by the schools and also contains a
tool kit so teachers can incorporate elements into other courses.
Further, OWH is a strategic partner in the planning of the research
roadmap for FDA, helping to align the research and structural needs for
the agency for the next 3 years.
Women across our great nation rely on OWH's high quality, timely
information to make medical decisions on behalf of themselves and their
families. OWH's highly regarded website is a vital tool for consumers
and physicians, providing free, downloadable fact sheets on over one
hundred different illnesses, diseases, and health related issues for
women. OWH has created medication charts on several chronic diseases,
listing all the medications that are prescribed and available for each
disease. These are vital functions that our healthcare professionals
and the public understand and utilize daily to make healthcare decision
and must be maintained.
[This statement was submitted by Martha Nolan, Vice President,
Public Policy, Society for Women's Health Research (SWHR).]
______
Prepared Statement of the Southern Poverty Law Center
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) submits this testimony
regarding the dangers posed to workers and consumers by the pending
regulation proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service entitled ``Modernization of Poultry Slaughter
Inspection,'' 77 Fed. Reg. 4,408--4,456 (Apr. 26, 2012). If
implemented, this regulation threatens the health and safety of
thousands of poultry slaughter and processing workers. The rule is part
of the agency's overhaul of its food safety inspection program,
proposed changes that have been harshly criticized by food safety and
workers' rights advocates alike. The USDA's proposed budget for the
coming fiscal year reflects cuts to food safety inspection funds that
indicate intent to implement this ill-advised rule.
1. the usda's proposed rule puts workers and consumers at risk.
The FSIS's proposed rule would increase the already intolerably
fast speeds of the poultry slaughtering and processing lines throughout
the country, from between 70 and 140 birds per minute, depending on the
number of food safety inspectors, to a new maximum of 175 birds per
minute. Currently there is no state or Federal line speed standard
designed to protect the safety of workers who produce this food. The
USDA's regulations are the only limit on line speeds for this industry.
The Subcommittee's intervention to halt or amend this rule, and to
restore the funding needed to avoid its implementation, would protect
workers as well as consumers.
Numerous studies find strong correlations between rates of
repetitive motions and likelihood of musculoskeletal injuries such as
carpal tunnel syndrome, which suggests that faster speeds will increase
the risk of worker injuries. The SPLC believes that the rule must
therefore be withdrawn in its entirety. If the proposed rule is not
withdrawn, the USDA should at least incorporate meaningful and
enforceable work speed safety standards to protect plant employees from
repetitive motion injuries and other musculoskeletal disorders. The
rule should at a minimum be stayed until adequate measures are
incorporated into the regulations to ensure that the health and safety
of workers in poultry processing plants are protected.
The Southern Poverty Law Center and Alabama Appleseed Center for
Law and Justice recently published a report entitled Unsafe at These
Speeds: Alabama's Poultry Industry and its Disposable Workers,\1\
providing a unique inside look at the operation of poultry plants and
documenting health, safety, and other conditions affecting workers in
all positions in the poultry industry--from chicken catchers, live
hangers, and rehangers to deboners, skin pullers, and box stackers. The
data and information included in this report leaves no question that
the current line speeds are too fast and any regulation that increases
these speeds and allows the industry to regulate itself is
unacceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A copy of the report is available at: http://www.splcenter.org/
get-informed/publications/Unsafe-at-These-Speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama alone produces more than 1 billion broilers per year--
ranking it third among states behind Georgia and Arkansas. The broiler
chicken industry has an $8.5 billion impact on the state--generating
about 75,000 jobs and 10 percent of Alabama's economy--and one that
plays a vital economic role in numerous small towns. But it all comes
at a steep price for the low-paid, hourly workers who face the
relentless pressure of the mechanized processing line.
Nearly three-fourths of the 302 workers whom we interviewed
revealed that they had suffered some type of significant work-related
injury or illness, yet 68 percent felt that they could not ask their
supervisors to improve health or safety hazards. In spite of many
factors that lead to undercounting of injuries in poultry plants, the
employer-reported data collected by the U.S. Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) reflected an injury rate of 5.9 percent
for poultry processing workers in 2010, a rate that is more than 50
percent higher than the 3.8 percent injury rate for all U.S. workers.
The realities workers discussed with us demonstrate an ongoing
health and safety crisis in the poultry processing industry,
principally driven by the punishingly fast speeds at which slaughtering
and processing lines currently operate. Over three-fourths (78 percent)
of workers said that an increase in the line speed makes them feel less
safe, makes their work more painful, and causes more injuries. These
speeds are a predominant factor in the most common type of injuries,
called musculoskeletal disorders. The most common injuries suffered
involved debilitating pain in workers' hands and upper limbs, gnarled
fingers and other permanent changes to workers' bodies, cuts, and skin
and respiratory problems. Workers in jobs most sharply affected by
processing line speeds and the high rates of repetitive motions
reported the highest rates of musculoskeletal injuries. Plant workers,
many whom are immigrants, are often treated as disposable resources by
their employers. Threats of deportation and firing are frequently used
to keep them silent about injuries and abuses, even if they are United
States citizens or have lawful immigration status.
In light of these findings, we respectfully urge members of the
Subcommittee to use their oversight authority and ask the Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service to withdraw its
proposed rule entitled ``Modernization of Poultry Slaughter
Inspection,'' especially the provisions that would increase maximum
permitted line speeds to 175 birds per minute and replace independent
Federal food safety inspectors with plant employees already too
intimidated to ask for protections for their own health. If the
proposed rule is not withdrawn altogether, the Food Safety and
Inspection Service should, at a minimum, require plants that opt into
the new inspection system to permit the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health to conduct health hazard evaluations, as
the FSIS previously required in its Salmonella Initiative Program rule,
published at 76 Fed. Reg. 41,186. We further urge the Subcommittee to
restore funding to the USDA's budget to avoid implementation of the
proposed rule and to preserve food safety inspector capacity to
adequately inspect every chicken slaughtered for consumption as
required under the Poultry Products Inspection Act.
Increases in the speeds at which slaughter and evisceration lines
run put the safety of all categories of workers in poultry plants at
risk. First, the workers most directly affected will be workers known
as live hangers. These workers must pick up and hang every live chicken
arriving at a plant at a pace fast enough to keep up with slaughter
line speeds. A live hang worker often must hang 60 birds per minute.
Second, the proposed rule would in essence create a new job
classification of plant workers sorting carcasses for defects. These
workers would have to collectively review and sort 175 birds per
minute. USDA employees currently conducting this work already suffer
repetitive motion injuries and file workers' compensation claims as a
result.
This risk would be, if anything, heightened for plant employees now
assuming these duties. Third, rehang workers, who must hang carcasses
on shackles or place them onto cones for other workers to cut, debone,
or otherwise process, would face increased risks of repetitive motion
injuries. Fourth, while it is possible for processing lines that are
located after the area known as the ``chiller'' to operate at different
speeds from the slaughter and evisceration lines that are most directly
affected by the USDA's proposed rule, additional birds slaughtered at
new, higher speeds would still need to be processed within a limited
time of slaughter, making it unlikely that there would be no changes in
other areas of plants. As an example, an increase in a worker's rate of
motion by even just one bird per minute equates to approximately 480
additional cutting, trimming, hanging, or other motions in a typical
work shift, and to approximately 2,400 additional motions in a standard
work week, during which each worker already performs tens of thousands
of such strenuous motions. Even what may seem superficially like a
small increase in the burden on each individual worker may have long-
term and permanent disabling effects on her body.
2. niosh's recent health hazard evaluations found severe health and
safety hazards related to fast work speeds and repetitive motions, and
do not support implementation of a rule permitting increased line
speeds.
The SPLC particularly wishes to clarify the import of two recent
reports issued by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH). The USDA has stated to the public that NIOSH's health
hazard evaluation from a poultry processing plant in South Carolina
suggested that line speeds may be increased without adverse effect on
the health and safety of plant employees. However, NIOSH evaluated
conditions in a plant that did not increase work speeds and was not
implementing the same changes as USDA has proposed. The USDA should not
draw conclusions about what the results would be if the rule were
published based on a study of a plant operating under different
conditions.
The NIOSH report confirmed that poultry processing workers suffer
extraordinarily high rates of painful and often permanently crippling
injuries on the job and validates the fact that fast work speeds pose a
serious risk to workers' health and safety. It evaluated working
conditions at one plant in South Carolina--a plant not operating in the
agency's HIMP pilot program. The plant was evaluated after it requested
a waiver from the USDA to combine two evisceration lines into one.
USDA should not use an evaluation showing consistently dangerous
conditions related to work speed in a plant where work speeds remained
steady to justify letting companies increase such speeds elsewhere. Key
differences in the operations of the plant evaluated for this report
and plants that will implement the rule when it is finalized make
comparisons impossible. It is inaccurate for the USDA to conclude that
NIOSH's study shows no effect from a line speed increase. The key
differences include:
--NIOSH did not test the effects of an increase in work speed at the
South Carolina plant.
--The number of birds processed per minute by each worker did not
change.
--The South Carolina plant did not make the same types of line-
related changes that plants will likely make under the USDA's
proposed rule.
--Following the initial NIOSH evaluation, the plant reconfigured its
evisceration lines from two lines to one, but did not increase
work speeds.
What the NIOSH poultry plant evaluation does clearly show are
extraordinarily high levels of crippling injuries at current work
speeds. For example:
--42 percent of workers in the evaluation had evidence of painful and
often permanently disabling carpal tunnel syndrome.
--Moderate or severe mononeuropathy, a type of nerve damage, was
found in 80 percent of workers with carpal tunnel syndrome.
--Reports of hand or wrist symptoms of musculoskeletal disorders from
workers on the evisceration line increased from 53 percent of
the workers to 62 percent after the evisceration line
reconfiguration.
The employer also failed to implement NIOSH's recommendations for
better protecting worker safety and health, including reducing
repetition and hand and wrist activity in job tasks to reduce carpal
tunnel syndrome. In its final report, NIOSH again recommends that the
employer design job tasks so that they are below the recommended
threshold limits to minimize the risk for developing carpal tunnel
syndrome. NIOSH specifically recommends ``reducing the speed of all
cone lines to reduce repetition.''
The findings of the recent NIOSH report do not justify the USDA
moving forward with its proposed rule to increase evisceration line
speeds and the removal of food safety inspectors from those lines.
3. conclusion
A central aspect of any effort to ``modernize'' the poultry
industry must be an end to the epidemic of repetitive motion injuries.
This could be accomplished by limiting line speeds and the number of
repetitions required of workers; by enforcing rights to bathroom and
other rest breaks; and by requiring other ergonomically sound
practices. These minimal worker safety protections must not be
sacrificed. The health and safety of these workers should be of utmost
concern to this Subcommittee and the agencies it oversees. This is why
the SPLC, along with Nebraska Appleseed and a total of fifteen civil
rights and workers' rights organizations, filed a formal rulemaking
petition with OSHA and the USDA on September 3, 2013 calling for these
agencies to promulgate a clear, enforceable, and slower work speed
safety standard in meat and poultry processing plants.2 We have yet to
receive a formal response from either agency.
We thank you for this opportunity to discuss our findings, the
problems they pose, and possible solutions.
[This statement was submitted by Tom Fritzsche, Staff Attorney,
Southern Poverty Law Center, Immigrant Justice Project.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Society
The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to submit
testimony concerning the fiscal year 2015 budgets for the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, National Institute of Food and
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Farm Service
Agency. The Wildlife Society was founded in 1937 and is a non-profit
scientific and educational association representing nearly 10,000
professional wildlife biologists and managers dedicated to excellence
in wildlife stewardship through science and education. Our mission is
to represent and serve the professional community of scientists,
managers, educators, technicians, planners, and others who work
actively to study, manage, and conserve wildlife and habitats
worldwide. The Wildlife Society is committed to strengthening all
Federal programs that benefit wildlife and their habitats on
agricultural and other private land.
animal and plant health inspection service
Wildlife Services, a unit of APHIS, is responsible for controlling
wildlife damage to agriculture, aquaculture, forest, range, and other
natural resources, monitoring wildlife-borne diseases, and managing
wildlife at airports. Its activities are based on the principles of
wildlife management and integrated damage management, and are carried
out cooperatively with state fish and wildlife agencies. In fiscal year
2015, the budget proposal includes funding to continue a national feral
swine control program, working cooperatively with the States currently
experiencing issues with feral swine. In recognition of the important
work that Wildlife Services performs regarding methods development and
wildlife damage management, we request that Congress support the
President's request of $106 million to Wildlife Services in fiscal year
2015.
A key budget line in Wildlife Service's operations is Methods
Development, which funds the National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC).
Much of the newest research critical to state wildlife agencies is
being performed at NWRC. In order for state wildlife management
programs to be the most up-to-date, the work of the NWRC must continue.
We recommend funding Methods Development at $19 million in fiscal year
2015.
national institute of food and agriculture
The Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) provides an expanded,
comprehensive extension program for forest and rangeland renewable
resources. RREA funds, which are apportioned to State Extension
Services, effectively leverage cooperative partnerships at an average
of four to one, with a focus on private landowners. The need for RREA
educational programs is greater than ever because of continuing
fragmentation of land ownership, urbanization, diversity of landowners
needing assistance, and increasing societal concerns about land use and
increasing human impacts on natural resources. The Wildlife Society
recommends that the Renewable Resources Extension Act be funded at $10
million.
The McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Program is essential to
the future of resource management on non-industrial private forestlands
while conserving natural resources, including fish and wildlife. As the
demand for forest products grows, privately held forests will be
increasingly needed to supplement resources obtained from national
forest lands. However, commercial trees take many decades to produce.
In the absence of long-term research, such as that provided through
McIntire-Stennis, the nation might not be able to meet future forest-
product needs as resources are harvested. We appreciate the $34 million
in fiscal year 2014 and urge that amount to be continued in fiscal year
2015, per the President's request.
natural resources conservation service
Farm Bill conservation programs are more important than ever, given
the huge backlog of qualified applicants, increased pressure on
farmland from biofuels development, urban sprawl, and the concurrent
declines in wildlife habitat and water quality. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), which administers many Farm Bill
conservation programs, is one of the primary Federal agencies ensuring
our public and private lands are made resilient to climate change. NRCS
does this through a variety of programs that are aimed at conserving
land, protecting water resources, and mitigating effects of climate
change.
One key program within the overall NRCS discretionary budget is
Conservation Operations. The fiscal year 2015 request for Conservation
Operations is $815 million. We urge you to provide $843.4 million for
Conservation Operations, which includes Conservation Technical
Assistance (CTA). Due to the General Services Administration's recent
decentralization of responsibility for making building rental payments,
the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) will for the first
time have to make rental payments out of the Conservation Operations
budget. NRCS expects to pay $28.6 million in rent in fiscal year 2015.
When this change is taken into account, the Administration's request of
$814.8 million for Conservation Operations would actually reduce the
amount of funding available for conservation operations by $26.6
million relative to fiscal year 2014.
Conservation Operation's Technical Assistance (TA) sub-activity
provides funding for NRCS to support implementation of the various Farm
Bill programs. The fiscal year 2015 budget proposal recommends $717
million in funding for TA, a slight increase from fiscal year 2014. The
Wildlife Society encourages you to support funding for TA at $717
million.
Overall, The Wildlife Society believes strong support for TA
delivery is needed. Implementing the changes in the 2014 Farm Bill will
require significant conservation planning and producer education
effort. In the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress showed strong support for the
use of mandatory funds for TA, though these funds can only be used in
association with a specific farm bill program. Appropriated funds for
Conservation Technical Assistance are still essential for NRCS to
provide good customer service and strong conservation results.
The Wildlife Society also supports the continuation of funding for
the Conservation Effects Assessment Project. Information gathered from
this effort will greatly assist in monitoring accomplishments and
identifying ways to further enhance effectiveness of NRCS programs.
After several years of negotiations, Congress recently passed the
Agriculture Act of 2014 with broad bipartisan support. This recently
passed Farm Bill renewed a suite of extremely popular and effective
conservation programs, but reduced mandatory funding by $4 billion. It
is critical that Congress ensure that all of direct spending on
conservation programs, as provided by the authorizing committees in the
Farm Bill, can be spent as Congress intended in fiscal year 2015. The
Wildlife Society recommends Farm Bill conservation programs be funded
at levels mandated in the 2014 Farm Bill. Demand for these programs
continues to grow during this difficult economic climate at a time when
greater assistance is needed to address natural resource challenges,
including climate change, soil quality deficiencies, declining
pollinator health, disease and invasive species, water quality and
quantity issues, and degraded, fragmented and lost habitat for fish and
wildlife.
We do have some concerns about the absorption of the Wildlife
Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP), a voluntary program for landowners
who want to improve wildlife habitat on their land, into the
Environmental Quality Habitat Incentives Program, as mandated by the
2014 Farm Bill. EQIP was funded at $1.374 billion in fiscal year 13 and
the President's fiscal year 2015 request is $1.35 billion. While at
least 5 percent of EQIP funds must go towards wildlife conservation, we
remain concerned that this $88 million decrease in overall funding
coupled with the additional program responsibilities due to the
absorption of WHIP could translate into lesser emphasis on critical
wildlife conservation efforts.
farm service agency
The Administration's request would slightly reduce funding for the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to $1.957 billion in fiscal year
2015. Lands enrolled in CRP are important for the conservation of soil
on some of the Nation`s most erodible cropland. These lands also
contribute to water quantity and quality, provide habitat for wildlife
that reside on agricultural landscapes, sequester carbon, and provide a
strategic forage reserve that can be tapped as a periodic compatible
use in times when other livestock forage is limited due to drought or
other natural disasters. We strongly encourage Congress to fund CRP at
a level that fully utilizes program enrollment authority through CRP
general sign-up.
Thank you for considering the views of wildlife professionals. We
look forward to working with you and your staff to ensure adequate
funding for wildlife conservation.
______
Prepared Statement of the World Food Program USA
The World Food Program USA, on behalf of the world's hungriest
people, urges the subcommittee to provide the strongest possible
funding to US international food aid programs. Specifically, we request
the following fiscal year 15 funding levels for three programs within
the jurisdiction of the subcommittee:
--Title II Food for Peace--$1.84 billion
--McGovern Dole Food for Education--$209.5 million
--Local and Regional Food Purchase program (LRP) newly authorized in
the 2014 Farm Bill--$80 million (full authorized level)
There are 842 million hungry people in the world. Global hunger
threatens US international economic and national security interests.
Robust funding for the three United States international food aid
programs described in this testimony is vital to preserving US
leadership and encouraging other countries to contribute their fair
share in the fight against global hunger. The Senate Appropriations
Committee has been a leader over the years in ensuring adequate funding
for U.S. food aid programs. We encourage you to continue that proud
tradition of leadership for fiscal year 2015.
food for peace
Food for Peace provides emergency food and development assistance
to millions suffering from hunger and malnutrition. For the past 50
years, Food for Peace (FFP) has been the primary vehicle for providing
food aid in response to natural disasters, crises, and conflicts around
the world. Maintaining robust funding for Food for Peace Title II and
finding ways to stretch that funding further is imperative.
While the United States remains the largest donor of global food
assistance, the reach of U.S. food assistance has dramatically declined
due to a sharp net drop of over a half billion dollars in Food for
Peace programs since 2009. With the ongoing Syria crisis and emergency
food requirements in Africa and parts of Asia, global need will likely
increase in 2014 and 2015. Supporting FFP at $1.84 billion would allow
the U.S. to reach approximately 50 million people with lifesaving food
aid and maintain its global leadership.
FFP programs are the foundation of global efforts to confront
hunger and malnutrition. FFP includes emergency programs that keep
people alive through natural disasters, conflict, and food security
crises and nonemergency developmental programs that address underlying
sources of chronic hunger through multiyear investments in nutrition,
agricultural productivity and diversification of household incomes.
The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) is the largest US
food aid partner, implementing programs that account for roughly 90
percent of Food for Peace emergency food aid funding. WFP estimates
$6.2 billion will be required to fund its 2015 emergency food
assistance programs. Over $ 2 billion--about 1/3 of total WFP emergency
needs--will be required just for the humanitarian crisis in Syria and
Syrian refugees in neighboring countries. Needs will continue to
persist across Sub-Saharan Africa, including Ethiopia, Sudan, Niger,
Somalia, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Chad, as
well as in parts of Southwest Asia of interest to the US such as Yemen,
Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Food for Peace provides the bulk of funding for the US to
contribute its historical average of about 30 percent of WFP emergency,
relief, and recovery programs. Other countries provide over 60 percent
of the annual contributions to WFP, which means that US food aid
channeled through WFP helps leverage significantly additional
international assistance.
mcgovern dole international food for education and child nutrition
program
The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program provides U.S. agricultural products and technical
assistance for school feeding projects in low income, food-deficit
countries that are committed to universal education. The McGovern-Dole
program provides school-age children in poverty-stricken countries with
what is often their only full meal of the day and protects vulnerable
children, especially during times of natural disasters and economic
shocks.
Serving food at school helps solve chronic hunger and can be life-
changing for the world's poorest children. School meals also help get
students into the classroom, giving them an important key to a better
future: an education. In areas where enrollment rates for girls are
low, McGovern-Dole supported programs work with families and
communities to make it possible for more girls to attend school. This
sometimes includes giving girls take-home rations that encourage
families to send daughters to school and also benefit younger children
at home.
Girls' education has a powerful ripple effect on families and
communities. One study has shown that the more education girls have,
the less likely their children will be malnourished. School meals can
help break the cycle of hunger and poverty for the world's most
vulnerable children.
The UN World Food Programme calculates that $3.2 billion is needed
per year to reach all 66 million primary school-age children that go to
school hungry every day. While an investment of $209.5 million for
school feeding represents a small fraction of overall global investment
in school feeding programs by donor and host country governments, U.S.
resources remain critical for low-income countries to continue school
feeding programs. We urge the committee to fund the McGovern-Dole
program at a level of $209.5 million in fiscal year 15.
local and regional food procurement program
We recommend fully funding the Local and Regional Procurement (LRP)
Program which was newly authorized at $80 million in the Agricultural
Act of 2014. Senate leadership in the 2014 Farm Bill conference was
essential to authorizing this new program. We hope Senate appropriators
will be equally visionary in funding the LRP program implementation.
Rigorous analysis of the USDA Local and Regional Procurement (LRP)
Pilot Project has shown that, compared with traditional U.S. food aid
shipments, LRP practices typically enable both emergency and non-
emergency assistance to be delivered more quickly, at considerable
savings, with the ultimate benefit of reaching larger numbers of
vulnerable people. LRP also generates important developmental impacts
by spurring local economic activity and helping form and strengthen
local markets.
The 2014 farm bill conference report's statement of managers
affirms that the intent of LRP programming is to complement existing
food aid programs, especially the McGovern-Dole Food for Education
program. Linking the new USDA LRP program to the McGovern-Dole program
improves the chances of long-term sustainability of school-feeding
programs supported by McGovern-Dole. A fundamental objective of U.S.
support to international school feeding is for countries to eventually
take over, manage, and fund their own school-feeding programs. This
means developing locally sustainable systems for the purchase and
management of food used in school-feeding programs to move away over
time from reliance on U.S.-donated commodities. U.S. support for LRP
can help countries make that transition to national ownership. Funding
the newly authorized LRP program would provide McGovern-Dole supported
programs with an LRP option that currently does not exist.
In order to encourage the link between the new LRP program and
McGovern-Dole, WFP USA recommends the committee include the following
language in its fiscal year 15 Appropriations bill report.
suggested report language:
``Funds appropriated for Local and Regional Procurement are
expected to be used for programs and activities that complement the
existing McGovern-Dole Food for Education program.''
[This statement was submitted by Richard Leach, President, World
Food Program USA]
______
Prepared Statement of the U.S. National Arboretum (USNA)
increased financial support is necessary at the u.s. national arboretum
The US National Arboretum (USNA), located in northeast Washington,
DC, is part of the Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville Unit. The
USNA conducts wide-ranging basic and developmental research on trees,
shrubs, turf, and floral plants. It is also engaged in the development
of new technologies for the floral and nursery industries. The Friends
of the National Arboretum request funding sufficient to recover support
lost to sequestration and other reductions over the past few years.
Gardens are a signature feature of the USNA. Single-genus groupings
include: azalea, boxwood, daffodil, daylily, dogwood, holly, magnolia,
and maple. Major garden features include: aquatic plants, the Asian
Collections, the Fern Valley Native Plant Collections, the Flowering
Tree Collection, the Flowering Tree Walk, the Friendship Garden, the
Gotelli Dwarf and Slow-Growing Conifer Collection, the Introduction
Garden, the National Bonsai & Penjing Museum, the National Capitol
Columns, the National Grove of State Trees, and the National Herb
Garden.
The budget for the Arboretum has steadily eroded over the past
decade. The budget for the USNA prior to sequestration was $12.1
million, nearly a million dollars below its highest level of funding.
As a consequence of additional reductions, the current level of funding
is about $11.1 million, requiring the facility to be closed to visitors
during the week and making it impossible to sustain its full research,
education, and visitor responsibilities. The Friends of the National
Arboretum are requesting an increase in resources for USNA to enable it
to restore its level of research and education, and become a premier
visitor destination in the Nation's Capital.
the arboretum contributes to the agricultural economy
The USNA is an important facility for the USDA's fundamental
missions of research and education on horticultural and nursery issues,
and serves as an important tourism and visitor destination in the
Nation's Capital. Nurseries and horticulture are major components of
the national agricultural economy. According to the American Nursery
and Landscape Association, the horticulture industry's production,
wholesale, retail, and landscape service components have annual sales
of $163 million, and sustain over 1,150,000 full and part-time jobs.
To serve this industry, the USNA conducts a wide-ranging program of
basic and developmental research on trees, shrubs, turf, and floral
plants. The Arboretum is also engaged in the development of new
technologies for the floral and nursery industries. The staff also
participates in the development of plants with superior characteristics
through a program of testing and genetic improvement. They are actively
involved in the taxonomy and nomenclature of ornamental plants and
their wild relatives. Finally, USNA staff are leaders in the collection
and preservation of plant germplasm with ornamental potential.
As a consequence of their work, the USNA has contributed 678
official plant releases, eight patents and two EPA biopesticide
registrations. In addition, USNA staff have published over 150
scientific articles in professional and trade journals in the last 3
years.
An important aspect of the Arboretum's leadership role in
horticultural research is its cooperative research relationships with
land grant schools and associations across the country. Cooperative
relationships exist with Alfred State University, Auburn University,
Brooklyn Botanic Garden, Cornell University, Danforth Plant Science
Center, Iowa State University, Michigan State University, National
Turfgrass Federation, North Carolina State University, Oklahoma State
University, Oregon State University, Rutgers University, Tennessee
State University, University of Arizona, University of California,
University of Connecticut, University of Florida, University of
Georgia, University of Maryland, University of Minnesota, University of
Missouri, University of Tennessee, University of Utah, University of
Wisconsin, USDA Forest Service, US Golf Association, and Washington
State University.
the national arboretum has important education and visitor
responsibilities
USNA has an important role in public education about horticulture
through symposia, lectures, workshops, and demonstrations plus plant,
flower, and art exhibitions; In addition, the Arboretum has been a
pioneer in urban gardening through the Washington Youth Garden (WYG), a
program of FONA that has, for the past 40 years has inspired children
and families to engage in self-discovery, explore relationships with
food and the natural world, and contribute to the health and well-being
of their communities.
The USNA is part of the largest contiguous parcel of greenspace in
Washington, DC, free to all and interesting through all of the seasons
of the year. It offers a place for quiet contemplation and to explore
nature in the backyard of the Nation's Capital. The Arboretum is also a
significant visitor and tourist destination in Washington, with
visitors making special trips to enjoy the National Bonzai Museum, the
National Herb Garden, the Capitol Columns, the azalea and boxwood
collections, and the Asia Collections. The USDA is currently working
with the State Department and the Peoples Republic to build a
traditional China Garden on the grounds of the Arboretum.
fona urges the committee to provide more resources to the usna
Budget cuts have reduced the ability of the Arboretum staff to
provide adequate maintenance and upkeep on the grounds, has restricted
valuable research programs, has restricted the educational role of the
USNA, and has limited the days that the USNA is open to tourists and
visitors.
The Arboretum and FONA have completed a new strategic plan for the
USNA that lays out a roadmap for achieving significant goals for
research, education, and visitation. Progress on moving forward on this
plan has stalled due to the budget cuts at the USNA.
The Friends of the National Arboretum is a 501(c)(3) organization
dedicated to working with the USDA and the USNA to achieve the goals
embodied in the strategic plan through programs of ``friend raising'',
fund raising, and advocacy.
We respectfully request that Congress provide resources sufficient
to enable the USDA and the USNA to advance the goals of the strategic
plan, and to open the doors of the Arboretum to visitors for additional
days each week.
[This statement was submitted by Ms. Barbara Shea, Chair, Friends
of the National Arboretum.]